Re: Dropping training events

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:41 AM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 13:18, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-11-08 01:50, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> > On 11/7/18 9:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> I'd like to propose that we drop the ability to register training
>> >> events
>> >> on the www.postgresql.org <http://www.postgresql.org> site.
>> >>
>> >> Reasons:
>> >>
>> >> 1. It's basically a system set up to game, where it helps to flood
>> >> with
>> >> a lot of instances and then cancel them (often without actually
>> >> removing
>> >> the registration on the website, and our moderators certainly don't
>> >> have
>> >> the time to go double-check which instances are actually happening
>> >> etc)
>> >
>> > Yeah, I think this is the crux of it: there are some people who are
>> > using the system fairly for promoting GA trainings with high-quality
>> > content that do happen. And then there is the above, which
>> > unfortunately
>> > is not just speculation but has been confirmed in multiple instances.
>>
>> Would it be feasible to still have the training events, but blacklist
>> (in
>> an effective way) the abusers?
>>
>> Just from the point of view of rewarding those people who do create good
>> value training + use the system fairly, and not punishing them because
>> some
>> places are abusing things.
>>
>
> Somewhat surprised to not see a reply to Justin's reasonable comment.
>

I agree he should've received a response. Somehow that fell between the
crack.

Why would we not just block everyone who acts unreasonably? Just as we do
> in other cases.
>

Mainly because (1) there would be a lot of effort to dealing with that
(there was *already* a lot of effort to it), (2) there would be very very
little content left at that point anyway, and (3) that content would still
not be very useful.

Will we remove Hackers next because people post spam to it? That would save
> moderator time also. But obviously not a serious suggestion.
>

If hackers provided no substantial value to the community then yes, we
would remove Hackers to save moderator time.

Blocking all training helps those who do NOT provide scheduled training, so
> the people who provide scheduled training have now been penalised for no
> reason.
>

The system that we had did NOT help companies that provided scheduled
training, really. What it helped were those people who used the system to
flood with training that most likely would not happen, in order to draw
clicks to their website.

And in the end, the website is there to help our *users*, not the companies
providing training. And it provided very close to zero values to those.

Should we have a way to connect our users with those companies providing
training? Absolutely! But it should not be the one we had, because it
simply did not work. The time spent on trying to manage that broken system
can much more efficiently be spent on creating a new system that actually
helps *both* our users *and* those companies that are serious about
providing training services.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>