|
|
| Author |
Message |
VisioN
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 73
|
 Posted: Jun 17, 2011 4:53pm Post subject: Janus Links |
 |
|
Hello,
I wanted to suggest a certain policy to be taken regarding Janus links. I know networks that have janus links and reach a total of 300+ users when they barely have 10 users. I know you are aware of this and I know that there has been another post about this but I havent seen any official announcement on it.
Thanks for your time |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
D3M0N
Idler
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 296
Location: Myrtle Beach, S.C.
|
| Posted: Jun 17, 2011 5:15pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What type of policy were you thinking of? I myself run a 100% Janus controlled network and would be glad to hear it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VisioN
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 2:44am Post subject: |
|
|
First of all , I have nothing against Janus linking and I also operate in a server in your janus link (IRCPros). But i believe this policy is essential so that Janus networks wont have a position boost over non-janus ones.
I also believe we should gather some ideas to sort this in this thread, and then maybe place them in a poll that is gonna last for a week or two. That should be fair, as the community (well, those who care) will make the real decision. What do you guys think?
My suggestion for now is that when a network is participating in a janus link should have a "JANUS NETWORK" sign in their ranking OR maybe be counted in a separate "janus networks ranking". There should be an option in updating network information to enable Janus status on or off so the network can be listed accordingly. Networks that are janus linked and are hidding it, should be treated the way networks with fake users or fake lusers display.
Note: This is just my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of anyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Post Whore
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 3027
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 3:27am Post subject: |
|
|
Hrm, I can't say I'm a fan of janus - it brings the same headaches as proper links/mergers with other networks do (albeit not to the same severity, but headaches nevertheless).
As to the request for an opinion on the indexing of Janus-linked networks here on SearchIRC, my opinion is that the networks in question are indeed merged with each other (even if it is by a relay bot, and even if they're only sharing select channels). | VisioN wrote: | | That should be fair, as the community (well, those who care) will make the real decision. |
Ideally this would be the case, however the last word will always remain Jason's (this will change only if SearchIRC were to change owners - something unlikely to happen), his "no" is enough to sink any idea (call it the power of the veto, if you will)
| Quote: | | My suggestion for now is that when a network is participating in a janus link should have a "JANUS NETWORK" sign in their ranking OR maybe be counted in a separate "janus networks ranking". There should be an option in updating network information to enable Janus status on or off so the network can be listed accordingly. Networks that are janus linked and are hidding it, should be treated the way networks with fake users or fake lusers display. |
Here's the rub, we would have few options available to us to prove - one way or the other - if any two networks are sharing channels (how hard is it to rename the Janus service and its clients, seriously) nor would any way for the scrawl bots to detect such linking arrangements be easy letalone possible.
Ultimately, the display of "This network is sharing channels with <network list>" would be entirely opt-in for each and every network, and we can only take their word for it; not much gain for the effort, is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VisioN
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 3:45am Post subject: |
|
|
| PingBad wrote: | | As to the request for an opinion on the indexing of Janus-linked networks here on SearchIRC, my opinion is that the networks in question are indeed merged with each other (even if it is by a relay bot, and even if they're only sharing select channels). |
The difference is that while a merged network would be listed as one, under the merged network name and even if they dont, Janus links are like 10 networks all benefiting with the same user boost and thus , ranking boost. (while of course a merge with 10 networks is something unrealistic to speak about) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Post Whore
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 3027
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 3:58am Post subject: |
|
|
| VisioN wrote: | | PingBad wrote: | | As to the request for an opinion on the indexing of Janus-linked networks here on SearchIRC, my opinion is that the networks in question are indeed merged with each other (even if it is by a relay bot, and even if they're only sharing select channels). |
The difference is that while a merged network would be listed as one, under the merged network name and even if they dont, Janus links are like 10 networks all benefiting with the same user boost and thus , ranking boost. (while of course a merge with 10 networks is something unrealistic to speak about) |
Point is, a stack of networks linked via janus should - strictly speaking - be indexed only under the one network name here; after all we don't index a given network's individual servers as though they had nothing to do with each other here at SearchIRC, so by the same token why should we index linked networks individually? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VisioN
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 4:59am Post subject: |
|
|
| Totally agree PingBad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GigIRC
Lurker
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 106
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 5:58am Post subject: touchy |
|
|
Yeah fair mention on both ends of the arguement and as we all atest this Janus thingamijig will remain very much in the grey area as far as user numbers and indexing are involved... even indexing services like searchirc and netsplit.de and alike are in the grey area as it is; in regards to 'True' user numbers... This is local knowlege! In saying that i truly feel that IRC has room for Janus with all its good and bad.
Personally i am an advocate of Janus..... JMHO
Timmy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D3M0N
Idler
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 296
Location: Myrtle Beach, S.C.
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 8:57am Post subject: |
|
|
| I do believe there should be a way to index a server from being a janus server or not... but those who dont click that button to enable janus will get away with it. and even if you automated the scrawl bot to mark it as janus if somone has a whatever.janus link in their /links, that can be edited to be whatever it wants... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VisioN
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 11:11am Post subject: |
|
|
What me and PingBad suggested is that we deal with Janus as a normal link. Janus linked servers should be considered one network, as they are all linked together. For example "myJanusLink" or w/e the Janus administrator decides. Sounds fair to me, as I dont list my network's servers as
GlobalNet
ChatNet
Server2Net
ArtNet etc.. I only get listed as SomeNet , containing all those servers. IMHO, thats the way janus should be dealt with too.
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D3M0N
Idler
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 296
Location: Myrtle Beach, S.C.
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 11:47am Post subject: |
|
|
I half way agree...
But if that were to take place, LOTS of people would stop using janus cause lots of people use janus so they can still be scrawled... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VisioN
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 1:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
| so you are actually saying that LOTS of ppl use janus to take an unfair advantage over non janus networks right? xD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D3M0N
Idler
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 296
Location: Myrtle Beach, S.C.
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 1:51pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I have been to nearly every single active network listed here on SearchIRC and out of about ~5000 of them, about 1800 of them have a janus linked to them, or they are running their own janus...
So thats a lot of work on both the users part for all of the to come back and udate their info stating "we run janus" as well as for jason to work something into the code to count it...
Lots of ppl do take advantage of it though..., One way being a clientbot. Client bots connect to another server and bring their users to your server w/o giving the other server more users as well.. which in my opinion is unfair. But just a janus -> ircd or janus -> janus link isnt as bad cause it helps both! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 3:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
| D3M0N wrote: | | Well I have been to nearly every single active network listed here on SearchIRC and out of about ~5000 of them, about 1800 of them have a janus linked to them, or they are running their own janus... |
Unfortunately, there aren't 5000 active nets. There are 5000 INDEXED nets, not active. I believe that it was once revealed that there are only about 1000 ACTIVE nets currently indexed.
There are only 506 networks larger than 50 counted users (includes services bots). I think you should reconsider your figures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D3M0N
Idler
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 296
Location: Myrtle Beach, S.C.
|
| Posted: Jun 18, 2011 5:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well my post was meant as a whole, not mainly SearchIRC. Since I have been using irc i have visited every single irc network listed here, on netsplit, and even those not listed that i have coincidentally found. SearchIRC has many networks that are listed as inactive... but are most definately active nets that just dont wanna be on searchirc anymore |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Log in
