|Posted on 19-Mar-2003 12:43 GMT by Christian Kemp||21 comments|
Here's a small update of what's happening (mostly behind the scenes) at ANN.lu. I rewrote most of the comments scripts last week, and apart from a few bugs already fixed and a few remaining glitches, it seems to work fairly well. The basic version of a trusted user system for signing comments also introduced last week seems to work well, although there's no frontend (or firm decision on how that should look) for general user registrations yet. I'm currently working on a "recently posted comments" script that does, in the first place, allow me to monitor comments more closely, and might later on be made available to trusted visitors or premium visitors (premium users being those who contribute(d) to ANN.lu in one way or another). As for visitor numbers, ANN has this month been serving approximately 12,000 pages a day to between 2000 and 2500 unique IPs in any 24 hour span.
|Small update : Comment 1 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Christophe Decanini (126.96.36.199) on 19-Mar-2003 12:15 GMT|
|Just a test.|
|Small update : Comment 2 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Rik Sweeney (188.8.131.52) on 19-Mar-2003 12:35 GMT|
|Hopefully I'll become a trusted user soon :)|
|Small update : Comment 3 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by cdecanini (184.108.40.206) on 19-Mar-2003 13:01 GMT|
|Small update : Comment 4 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by John Block (220.127.116.11) on 19-Mar-2003 13:06 GMT|
|Feature creep ideas:|
1) Address munging
So that users do not get spammed because their addresses were icked up by address collecting spambots.
Possibly replacing @ in email addresses with &
2) Anonymous posting for trusted users.
|Small update : Comment 5 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Don Cox (18.104.22.168) on 19-Mar-2003 13:26 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 4 (John Block):|
"2) Anonymous posting for trusted users."
That's impossible. How can you trust somebody who posts anonymously, or under a false name?
|Small update : Comment 6 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Bob Smith (22.214.171.124) on 19-Mar-2003 13:33 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 4 (John Block):|
(1) The user can easily munge their own address when they submit a post.
(2) Good god no - what ab absolutely awful idea - what possible benefit could it serve? The only point of Trusted User is so you can be sure that they are who they say they are. So what benefit would it be to them posting anonymously as a Trusted User?! None whatsoever. IMO, naturally.
|Small update : Comment 7 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by takemehomegrandma (126.96.36.199) on 19-Mar-2003 13:50 GMT|
|> As for visitor numbers, ANN has this month been serving approximately 12,000 |
> pages a day to between 2000 and 2500 unique IPs in any 24 hour span.
It would be interesting to know if that numbers has increased, decreased or if it has remained pretty much unchanged compared to other comparable periods of time?
|Small update : Comment 8 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Christian Kemp (Registered user) on 19-Mar-2003 14:00 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 7 (takemehomegrandma):|
March will not be a record month, but comparable in volume to most recent months. If I remember correctly, the most pageviews in a month ever were around 450,000 (but don't quote me on that one, I can't really investigate right now), and around 300,000 to 350,000 is a good average.
|Small update : Comment 9 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Atheist2 (188.8.131.52) on 19-Mar-2003 15:01 GMT|
|I keep reading people aren't gonna come here because of this and that, but it appears to be bluffing. No one wants to miss out on a good free-for-all or a good laugh or two!|
And it bothers me when people refer to it as the flamer/biased network. It's fun here.
AmigaOne! Let's talk awhile!
|Small update : Comment 10 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by reflect (184.108.40.206) on 19-Mar-2003 15:06 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 6 (Bob Smith):|
I think he means that even though you are a trusted user, that you should be able to NOT be a trusted user and post as any other anonymous user. but I guess you just omit your password then :)
|Small update : Comment 11 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by takemehomegrandma (220.127.116.11) on 19-Mar-2003 15:21 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 9 (Atheist2):|
> I keep reading people aren't gonna come here because of this and that, but
> it appears to be bluffing.
If that is true, then it's great! I had a feeling that recent "back stabbing" actions from certain actors would hurt these old time community web sites. It would be great if they failed (it would be even better if it backfired upon themselves in some way).
I guess that both ann.lu and amiga.org are some solid institutions in the community that won't be killed that easily!
|Small update : Comment 12 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by takemehomegrandma (18.104.22.168) on 19-Mar-2003 15:25 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 10 (reflect):|
> I think he means that even though you are a trusted user, that you should be
> able to NOT be a trusted user and post as any other anonymous user.
That would only be useful for trolling IMO (how is that good?). Or perhaps to gain wide support for your point in a debate through some "virtual users"!
|Small update : Comment 13 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous (22.214.171.124) on 19-Mar-2003 16:57 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 11 (takemehomegrandma):|
|Small update : Comment 14 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Ole-Egil (126.96.36.199) on 19-Mar-2003 17:08 GMT|
|I dunno if it's just me, but I got some serious deja-vu problems with some comments in this thread. Might be only me, though. The worst bit is that I have recursive deja-vu (I feel like I've had this feeling of having done this before, ad nausem)|
|Small update : Comment 15 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Small update : Comment 16 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by reflect (188.8.131.52) on 19-Mar-2003 17:55 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 12 (takemehomegrandma):|
no, it would not only be good for trolling, it would differentiate your personal view from that of the company you are working for, which to me is as natural as water.
if I worked for company X, I would perhaps like to say something that shouldn't get that companies credibility/non-credibilty with the post.
hard to put words to what I mean, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
|Small update : Comment 17 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Teemu I. Yliselš (Registered user) on 20-Mar-2003 00:44 GMT|
|another test :)|
|Small update : Comment 18 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by John Block (184.108.40.206) on 20-Mar-2003 09:14 GMT|
|Say if an amiga employee wants to leak something, they should have to option of being anonymous, yet the credibility of being trusted.|
A bit like posting an item and emailing Christian that you are the poster.
On the address munging, if Ann.lu di it, then there could be a script to correct the email when people click on the link.
|Small update : Comment 19 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Bob Smith (220.127.116.11) on 20-Mar-2003 13:32 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 18 (John Block):|
No, it is STILL a very bad idea which woudl acheive absolutely nothing positive whatsoever.
Think about it for a moment.
An anonymous-yet-trusted person posts some information which points to problems which will delay shipping of product X.
How the heck are we supposed to know whether this is a person involved with company X warning people something is going to go wrong, or someone from company Y spreading FUD, or even someone from company Z annoyed with company X and just being childish about it?
Answer - we can not know that, ergo any and every post from an anonymous-yet-trusted person is not believable, rendering the entire idea pointless.
|Small update : Comment 20 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Don Cox (18.104.22.168) on 21-Mar-2003 11:11 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 14 (Ole-Egil):|
Nested groundhogs - like Russian dolls.
|Small update : Comment 21 of 21||ANN.lu|
|Anonymous, there are 21 items in your selection ||