Re: Not wanting to throw a wrench in things

>>>There are over 200 mirror providers who are all entitled to a banner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Who don't get one a banner...
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, don't understand what you mean?
>
>
Sorry. What I mean, is they don't have a banner now so what is
the difference?

>
>
>>they aren't "entitled".
>>
>>
>
>Yes they are. That is something they have all been offered in return for
>hosting a mirror. See http://www.postgresql.org/mirrors-howto.html
>
>
O.k. well let me rephrase. They don't have to have a banner.
I am not saying they shouldn't get a link. Heck it can even
be a larger text link :).

Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid
banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want
to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not
raise a fuss.

>>>
>>>
>>Put the banner on the mirror page. Or again have a sponsors
>>page that has a category:
>>
>>Internet Resource Providers:
>> Mirrors: USA, France ...
>> Relays: ...
>> etc...
>>
>>
>
>Can't see that getting many hits ;-)
>
>
True.

>>>
>>>
>>Ick. I personally wouldn't like that. Why not just allow
>>them to use the footer directive in Apache if they choose?
>>
>>
>
>That's a possibility. How badly will it muck up the formatting though?
>
>
Well it goes out as the last thing in a page so as long as
we supply a template for the footer it should be really easy.

>>Have their name under the link for the mirror on the mirror
>>page.
>>
>>
>
>Another possibility, though we would need to tweak the formatting
>somewhat to accommodate that (even a name like Command Prompt Inc. would
>need a lot more room than is there now). That would work for the web
>mirrors as well of course.
>
>
Yes there is true to the space problem but that seems to be
a more direct relationship to the service and a little easier
to manage overall.

>>Well we could if we used their API. I might be able to get
>>special permission to get a greater search quota if we did
>>that.
>>
>>Although... in this instance I don't think the "look" is relevant.
>>Google is a huge brand and their search engine is better than
>>anything we are going to come up with.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed it's a much better engine, but fine tuning queries to specific
>parts of the sites might be more difficult.
>
>Not to mention that we would have to wait up to a month (or whatever the
>Google cycle currently is) for posts on archives and news etc. to get
>archived. That is definitely not a option imho.
>
>
Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their
appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make
it look any way we want and index as much as we want?

J

>Regards, Dave
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL