On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:34:40PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote:
> I realise this might be a slightly sensitive
subject - but if there is
> nobody willing to step up and actively admin OGL, it may be time to
> gracefully retire it from service. Its current state is kind of
On Wed 23 Sep 2009, Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
Could you be more specific? What active admin do you
think it needs
(I'm tending to the pending moderations when I get time, but otherwise
don't do much). What is embarrassing about its current state?
The only new pages that have been added recently are adverts. The
information that was added by actual users is all out of date by at
least four years. The transport pages are particularly misleading,
since there have been many changes in those years. Nobody is curating
the information, and there's no consistency of style. The coverage is
confusingly patchy. The naming scheme is stuck between the
pre-great-renaming postcode-in-title thing and the half-completed
great rename. There are too many pages with content consisting solely
of e.g. "View all pages in Locale Newington Green".
Is it really just me that thinks this? Are my standards too high?
This may be a London thing - to my eyes, as a Londoner who keeps up
with the various London blogs and online guides to London, OGL is a
mess - but perhaps to someone used to less-crowded online "markets"
it's not quite so bad?
I'm not trying to criticise your work in keeping OGL free of wikispam
- that's an achievement in itself - but I do think that for a large
and constantly-changing city such as London there is a lot more to the
job than the task of keeping the guide viagra-free.