Motion to remove indexing of networks with <100 active us

greg27 · Idler Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 255 Location: Australia

Quality != quantity. Just because a network has less than x users doesn't mean it isn't a good network and therefore not worthy of being indexed by SIRC. If the aim is to stop 'drive-by' networks it'd be more effective to have new networks enter a waiting list of a set period of time (say three months). If it still exists after that period then it's added to the index.

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

hah, can you imagine the flood of messages posted here for people who have to wait three months?!? People are annoyed they have to wait a week or more!

I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

If Jason's comfortable with the current level of submissions/rejections, no need to limit new networks based on how many friends/spammed-people someone has.

Drakling · none Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 24

TheCjman · Posted: Jul 23, 2009 1:32pm Post subject:

Jobe · Posted: Jul 23, 2009 6:54pm Post subject:

I voted no for one simple reason, there are a LOT of networks, with >20 <100 users that are EXCELLENT networks. They dont tend to attract trouble, or abuse and everyone tends to know and get along with everyone else. Where as you lose that the bigger a network gets. If you remove all the networks <100, then you pretty much hide all those quiet friendly networks from anyone who's looking for them.

As for networks <100 always dying, that is a little harsh, the network I manage and run is less then 100 users, average around 65 excluding services, including doesnt even take it about 100 then, and it's been going for a few years now. Katsklaw helped to start it up, and it's still going. I see no reason to punish networks such as this, for those that dont stick around. I've seen many come and go.

Anyway as an alternate suggestion, maybe make the requirement time based not user based, and remove, not disable, any networks that came and went within an agreed period of time, say for example 6 months. That would for a start clear a lot of garbage out of the databases. And before people argue "They're there for historic records" I ask this, is a network that didnt even last a couple of weeks, anything worth recording in history? Sure there are some one minute wonders out there, but we're talking IRC networks, not record breaking, or world famous marvels.

Jason · Posted: Jul 23, 2009 7:22pm Post subject:

I use to have rules for minimum network size, and that was really because the system couldn't handle the influx of transient networks that the sirc team would have to research and manually add, only to find that the network is dead a week later.

Now we just wait a week before it is able to be reviewed, a single page shows all the network stats and it's not too painful to add. The system takes care of the rest.

I like having more networks. If we only indexed a select range of networks, then it fails as an irc search engine.

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

webcoder · Lurker Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 162 Location: Florida

What about those nets that dont have alot of users but have been around for a few years?

Trixar_za · Posted: Jul 24, 2009 6:06am Post subject:

May I add this is a exercise in futility?

This just reminds me of the mentality of most $5 Admins with their blatant attempt at control via exclusion and hoarding. Seems that some here just want to put the limit so high so that it LIMITS the competition to their own network.

For these very reasons I voted a very loud NO.

webcoder · Lurker Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 162 Location: Florida

Adamon · none Joined: 28 Aug 2009 Posts: 6 Location: Pennsylvania

Simply Put:

No.

Telume · none Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 46

I voted no because that would exclude my network, and my network's been around for about 6 years now, albeit under different names. And we get along perfectly fun with under 100 users.

As a matter of fact most of my users have expressed that they are perfectly fine with the network's size and see no reason to have it become one of those 1000+ user networks.

Not that there is anything wrong with being one but, I'm just stating my point: My users are happy with where the network is and there is NO reason to change that.

Lyhne1 · Posted: Oct 20, 2009 5:38pm Post subject:

I can see where it get tiresome deal with networks that come and go so quickly. Make it a rule that you can only add new network, after your network been up and running for like 90days or something. Sure there a way to get time stamp when they went online with there network.

PingBad · Posted: Oct 20, 2009 10:07pm Post subject:

Trixar_za · Posted: Oct 21, 2009 2:59am Post subject: