It turns out I forgot all about this list. See below for discusison of the future of cambridge.openguides.org.
Cheers, Dominic.
----- Forwarded message from Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li -----
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:47:02 +0000 From: Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li To: OpenGuides software developers' list openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org Subject: Re: [OGDev] A batch of abandoned Open Guides
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:41:38AM +0000, Kake wrote:
On Tue 06 Dec 2016, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
As I'm in the process of moving the config for the server in question, I'm looking at whether to migrate the following sites:
http://copenhagen.openguides.org/ http://isle-of-wight.openguides.org/ http://north-devon.openguides.org/wiki/ http://portsmouth.openguides.org/ http://swindon.openguides.org/
These are all sites which seem to have very little genuine content, and (where edits are enabled) are sadly swamped by spam.
Thanks for bringing this up. I wasn't aware some of those sites even still existed! As a local historian, I would argue that keeping some of these online but with the spam removed, edits disabled, and a clear banner saying that they're no longer being updated might be the best way to deal with the issue. For example, this page: http://north-devon.openguides.org/wiki/?Terrace_Tapas_Bar might seem useless, but actually I've made use of similar comments in my own local history articles.
Conversely, the Isle of Wight guide does seem not to have any real content, so I see no reason to keep it.
It's up to you, though, since you're the one who would have to do the work of migration. Another option could be to clean up the spam and then make sure everything's in the Internet Archive before deleting the sites, though this makes it harder for a websearch to reveal the info.
If there was any significant volume of content, or someone interested in keeping it running, I can put the effort in, but otherwise, I'm not sure I have the spare energy. (The owner of North Devon for example emailed me privately to say it should go).
This site:
http://cambridge.openguides.org/
has quite a lot of spam but also a reasonable amount of genuine content, even if not very up-to-date.
I pretty much gave up on spamtrapping on the Cambridge guide because it was non-trivial to update the spamcatcher module. Oxford seems to be doing OK, though - is that all manual or is someone keeping the spamcatcher module up to date? If the latter, could the two guides share a spamcatcher module?
Oxford uses an Akismet plugin:
http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/tmp/Akismet.pm.txt
I've just set Cambridge up to use that too.
Dominic.
It would take a concerted effort to get people to update it again, but they're probably around. Don't know how to go about it - I could try recruiting facebook people. I'm kind of too busy with other stuff to do a comprehensive clean-up.
Glenys
On 08/12/2016 21:50, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
It turns out I forgot all about this list. See below for discusison of the future of cambridge.openguides.org.
Cheers, Dominic.
----- Forwarded message from Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li -----
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:47:02 +0000 From: Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li To: OpenGuides software developers' list openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org Subject: Re: [OGDev] A batch of abandoned Open Guides
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:41:38AM +0000, Kake wrote:
On Tue 06 Dec 2016, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
As I'm in the process of moving the config for the server in question, I'm looking at whether to migrate the following sites:
http://copenhagen.openguides.org/ http://isle-of-wight.openguides.org/ http://north-devon.openguides.org/wiki/ http://portsmouth.openguides.org/ http://swindon.openguides.org/
These are all sites which seem to have very little genuine content, and (where edits are enabled) are sadly swamped by spam.
Thanks for bringing this up. I wasn't aware some of those sites even still existed! As a local historian, I would argue that keeping some of these online but with the spam removed, edits disabled, and a clear banner saying that they're no longer being updated might be the best way to deal with the issue. For example, this page: http://north-devon.openguides.org/wiki/?Terrace_Tapas_Bar might seem useless, but actually I've made use of similar comments in my own local history articles.
Conversely, the Isle of Wight guide does seem not to have any real content, so I see no reason to keep it.
It's up to you, though, since you're the one who would have to do the work of migration. Another option could be to clean up the spam and then make sure everything's in the Internet Archive before deleting the sites, though this makes it harder for a websearch to reveal the info.
If there was any significant volume of content, or someone interested in keeping it running, I can put the effort in, but otherwise, I'm not sure I have the spare energy. (The owner of North Devon for example emailed me privately to say it should go).
This site:
http://cambridge.openguides.org/
has quite a lot of spam but also a reasonable amount of genuine content, even if not very up-to-date.
I pretty much gave up on spamtrapping on the Cambridge guide because it was non-trivial to update the spamcatcher module. Oxford seems to be doing OK, though - is that all manual or is someone keeping the spamcatcher module up to date? If the latter, could the two guides share a spamcatcher module?
Oxford uses an Akismet plugin:
http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/tmp/Akismet.pm.txt
I've just set Cambridge up to use that too.
Dominic.
openguides-cambridge@lists.openguides.org
-
Dominic Hargreaves -
Glenys Williams