Motion to remove indexing of networks with <100 active us

HollyW00d · Lurker Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 202 Location: IRC

Well,

I would like to see what the people say about this topic.

PingBad · Posted: Jul 22, 2009 1:11pm Post subject:

probably should clarify regarding 100 actual human users, and not bots - but yeah, I agree; it'll certainly weed out those drive-by networks that seem to be a worrying trend (and annoying)

Drakling · none Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 24

I voted no. I really don't see what this would really accomplish.

PingBad · Posted: Jul 22, 2009 2:10pm Post subject:

Drakling · none Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 24

I can understand that. But in that case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to do at least 700 instead of 100? I mean, anyone can easily get 100 unique users. 100 wouldn't really be worth the effort. I think the fact that the original poster's network has no more than 100 unique users is what caused him to set it at 100. Favoritism? I think so.

Let me be the first to speak my mind about this guy here. I've seen him complain about new networks far too many times, when his network is only a year old and was certainly among those new networks considered to be pointless. If that's the fuel to his little suggestion here, then I must say it: hypocrit.

I still do consider his network fairly new (1 year is not that old), and I still do consider it another pointless network. It offers nothing that most other networks offer. So before preaching the word about other networks, I think it's time for everyone to take a look at their own network. Go ahead and "BANG" this post if you wish, because you and I both know that I am only speaking the truth here.

I'm fed up with people claiming that all these people need to quit starting new networks and find a network to get into. You know what? You guys all started the same way we are. Sure, some of them fail, but that doesn't mean everyone is that way. I, for one, do not give up on any of my work. You tell me exactly how one is supposed to exactly join into a big network and volunteer to help them when most of them require a few years of experience? Well, what do you think starting a new network is? It's a learning thing and helps to give that experience. This kind of thing seems to me like the admins with their 100-300 user networks are scared of new networks. Those are the only admins I've seen complain about it.

PingBad · Posted: Jul 22, 2009 2:58pm Post subject:

Was that really called for? It was a simple suggestion, and I was hoping this could be at least conducted with some form of civility

Drakling · none Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 24

Yes, it is totally related.

katsklaw · Posted: Jul 22, 2009 3:17pm Post subject:

katsklaw · Posted: Jul 22, 2009 4:56pm Post subject:

I'd also like to know how you plan to determine when a network hits 100 users.

*Do you have a fool proof way to tell bots from users?
-If so, then you have done the impossible and should share your secret.

*How many services bots is considered acceptable? 2? 10? 50? a percentage?
-How would you prove such a percentage?

*If I have more U:Lined connections that you think is needed in your opinion am I disqualified?

*What about your network? is it fair for others to claim you unqualified because you have X number of bots and in their opinion you should only have Y?

*Is there a hard limit? soft limit?

*Who is going to volunteer to keep tabs on every network to insure they stay qualified to be indexed?
-What qualifications does this person(s) have or needs to have that guarantees everyone is being treated fairly?

*Doesn't the above seem rather troublesome to satisfy the needs of a select few?

Drakling · none Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 24

/* Rant */
IF you are referring to my server that you connected to recently with only a few users and calling me a hypocrite for it then you are again full of it! MY server is for the development of a new IRCd. I chose to leave my server open to public connections but that by no means it's a public, in production network. However if it makes you feel better I'll be happy to Z:Line your entire ISP so you don't think it's open anymore. It's not even indexed so you can come down off your soap box and stop complaining about things you obviously haven't all the facts for.

IF you are not refering to me, then please disregard the above paragraph.

/* End Of Rant */[/quote]

I am in no way calling you the hypocrite here. I like constructive criticism more than criticism, and you give the constructive type when you do complain. It's those that complain, yet don't go that route that I call hypocrite. Everything you said in your post, I can and will agree to. I believe in the same things as displayed by your post.

In either case, don't you think it would be much more wise for those who do complain about the new networks to focus on their own rather than sitting there watching for any new network to criticize for their efforts in providing another network?

I do believe that this is the exact reason hollywood started this poll, because he dislikes any new networks that try to make a name and automatically assumes them to be stupid, pointless, and a waste of time. So what? It is my time, not his, being wasted. I will do with it as I wish. My words were primarily directed at him and others who think like him, not you.

katsklaw · Posted: Jul 22, 2009 5:58pm Post subject:

cool

and thank you for not blowing a gasket Smile

I was worried that even though I bolded the "IF" words, that you'd still think I was ranting at you when you wasn't referring to me. However, you'd have to admit that I too have a <1 year old, less than 100 user net and have been complaining about new nets. So I was just covering my bases. I would indeed be a hypocrite if I told you not to start a new generic net and yet I go and do it myself without having a good reason.

Anyway, I do still disagree with your statements that we all start the same, we most certainly do not. Sure, a lot of new nets/admins do but "a lot" is not the same as "all". Smile

Anyway, my vote is "#$^%#%$ NO!"

PS: Before people get too carried away about crunching numbers .. It should be known that it's very possible (because there is software already out there and has been for many years) that can simulate active users and I mean simulate thousands and thousands of users so don't be so quick to "know how to tell".

nuff sed, ciao

HollyW00d · Lurker Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 202 Location: IRC

Theres plenty of ways to keep up with network userloads. The first way would be to use an active bot to index the network to begin with and if it does not meet the requirements, then the network is to be dropped.

No network is going to simulate users simply to be indexed. And if they do, Im sure there would be plenty of people willing to go through the list to find people breaking the rules. And once a rule is broken, the network can be blacklisted.

I don't need to go through all the ways, its not hard. There are plenty of volunteers.

Drakling · none Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 24

Willaim · Idler Joined: 27 Jun 2003 Posts: 321 Location: IRC

No. I could see less than 50 users, but not 100.

Definitely not 700 either, as my network avgs 200-250ish, so that would drop my network out... and that's not fair. (And we've been around for about 6 years, so we're here for the long haul.)

HollyW00d · Lurker Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 202 Location: IRC

Drakling netsplit.de uses a similar index policy. Im not sure what the user count is but they are widely recognized and it has not created bogus networks.

You do not have any facts to back your statement up sir.