Cleaning up the databse.

I have been tweaking the new search and it is working really great! The downside is that it is now exposing things that are not useful for many who might want to come here. The thoughts, especially ones with interesting titles, are about 2/3 useful and 1/3 tabloid … and that’s not so bad.

It’s the comments that are in most cases only about 10% useful to anyone and up to 30% offensive and would have been cut already in most any other public medium. This is the one thing left that makes me hesitate to invite anyone I know here to play and enjoy. It would be different if there were 100 people here already and only a few people with comments like these, but it’s the other way around. Anyone going browsing is going to be quickly mired in muck.

I suggest coming up with a few patterns to allow archiving a lot of the comments. For instance, virtually any comment with the word “rwg” is almost for sure not about the thought or useful to anyone else, same for the comments surrounding it. With some good patterns the database could be really cleaned up. The archived comments could be copied to a duplicate comment table that could be referenced later in an “opt in” fashion for historical purposes. They don’t have to be lost forever.
 

Comments


Holmes says
Mark 2016-01-18 08:59:33 [item 19694#42610]
I suggest that the authors & owners curate their own material otherwise we become not free ideas but the censorship of some peculiar political/omnipitant correctness hierarchy which I want no part of. I’ll just keep my thoughts private maybe that will keep the easily offended silent. 
It’s mostly not thoughts, it’s comments. And your’s are everywhere, not just in groups you personally curate. There are way too many comments (over 30,000) to curate manually anyway.

Seth says
dA 2016-01-18 09:00:46 [item 19694#42612]
I could additionally add a feature that allows administrators, or everyone, to flag comments for review. Then it will be easy to automate reviewing and offloading those to an archive.
like i said above …. i don’t want to put a lot of work in cleaning up this domain.   i think we need to start fresh in a new domain.

Holmes says
dA 2016-01-18 09:05:54 [item 19694#42616]
Okay. Well in any case, rating content, and comments, is part of any good gaming of the site so things should start moving in that direction.
seth 2016-01-18 09:13:07 [item 19694#42618]
i’m not sure what you have in mind there … but sounds totally interesting. 

i just think for reach out we need to start emphasizing that we can move to another domain … maybe actually do it.   fastblogit itself has way to much baggage to attract people to think.  and getting obsessed with cleaning it up would be like months or years of effort … i am too old for that … i want to dive into a fresh start.  
dA 2016-01-18 09:17:42 [item 19694#42620]
That’s fine. But your driving that. If there is a place to move it to, and a nice homepage, I can move it. Then fbi can become the new dev branch. Until then I not wasting cycles on it myself.

Speaking of new homepage, that may be the one feature you would want before starting a new site … ability to publish the homepage from thoughts. It’s a nickel feature too so I could get interested in it.
seth 2016-01-18 09:21:15 [item 19694#42622]
yes yes … i want it … i want it … the ability to publish the homepage from thoughts … er, did i say i wanted it … [picture of bozo going bizerk here]
like

Mark de LA says
seth 2016-01-18 08:59:50 [item 19694#42611]
that’s not the approach i want to take.   I suggest opening a new domain targeted to a reach out.   fastblogit.com is already too deep into mine and mark’s mind to be an attractor for something new.  

maybe something like thinkingdomain.org … i don’t know … something catchy … a place to start fresh. 

then if we can get migration of thoughts all the really interesting stuff at fastblogit will still not be lost and can be migrated to the new domain.
Mark 2016-01-18 09:05:16 [item 19694#42615]
I think when we get to move items to other groups an author/owner can move stuff somewhere safe for his own pleasure & archive. Items can be made private from search.  Comments should be, but don’t seem so now. Hope someone backed up the old fbi1 database. For me, I was intending to triage my old stuff from fbi1 when things settle down a bit. Some theoretically unbiased machine doesn’t cut it for me.
dA 2016-01-18 09:08:48 [item 19694#42617]
Yes. I was feeling for the next most exciting thing to tigger bounce. That might just be it.
seth 2016-01-18 09:15:16 [item 19694#42619]
why not just , as you say “move stuff to another group” …  er, in another domain.   same move technology really, no?
Mark 2016-01-18 09:21:35 [item 19694#42623]
Here is a solution: If Nate wants to build himself a walled garden of LOA he could acquire his own domain somewhere else & I for one would not intrude. coolyes
dA 2016-01-18 09:25:52 [item 19694#42626]
I actually have no interest in hosting an LOA forum. LOA is something I do, not something I pontificate about or write scripture for. It’s a living art. Everything I post anywhere is LOA infused … it is a way of being, not something to observe or talk about except to answer natural questions as they arise.
Mark 2016-01-18 09:30:25 [item 19694#42628]
Perhaps a missed opportunity to shield your selfie from disagreements & thoughts negative to yours. Seems as if you are trying to build a walled garden inside fbi2 anyway. 
seth 2016-01-18 09:40:09 [item 19694#42630]
well i am interested in learning more about LOA and in particular how to practice it.  i’m betting that mark does too.   from my experience with nathan there will be plenty of opportunity to interact with that … a group, or a tag room … or just interaction in the context of it happening … why don’t we just leave it at that?
I’m game thumbs up providing I don’t have to suffer being cussed at for disagreement or being lectured for it. yes

Holmes says
seth 2016-01-18 08:59:50 [item 19694#42611]
that’s not the approach i want to take.   I suggest opening a new domain targeted to a reach out.   fastblogit.com is already too deep into mine and mark’s mind to be an attractor for something new.  

maybe something like thinkingdomain.org … i don’t know … something catchy … a place to start fresh. 

then if we can get migration of thoughts all the really interesting stuff at fastblogit will still not be lost and can be migrated to the new domain.
Mark 2016-01-18 09:05:16 [item 19694#42615]
I think when we get to move items to other groups an author/owner can move stuff somewhere safe for his own pleasure & archive. Items can be made private from search.  Comments should be, but don’t seem so now. Hope someone backed up the old fbi1 database. For me, I was intending to triage my old stuff from fbi1 when things settle down a bit. Some theoretically unbiased machine doesn’t cut it for me.
dA 2016-01-18 09:08:48 [item 19694#42617]
Yes. I was feeling for the next most exciting thing to tigger bounce. That might just be it.
seth 2016-01-18 09:15:16 [item 19694#42619]
why not just , as you say “move stuff to another group” …  er, in another domain.   same move technology really, no?
dA 2016-01-18 09:19:47 [item 19694#42621]
Yes. Moving something to another domain is generally not harder, just a url change for the submit. The only real tricky part is validating permissions in both domains at once.
seth 2016-01-18 09:24:53 [item 19694#42625]
hmmm … well if a person has rights to both the from and the to group … then they should be able to just say migrate.    if it is from domain to domain, well the person’s identity must be the same.   i mean, is trans-domain identity tricky?  hmmm … 
dA 2016-01-18 09:28:54 [item 19694#42627]
It is. Not so much information wise, but making it secure so that any hacker cant utilize the channel maliciously takes a day or so of work. It would be easier if all your domains were https. You should consider purchasing ssl keys … would save developer work.
seth 2016-01-18 09:35:20 [item 19694#42629]
well you know that it’s maybe $300/year or so per domain for a ssl key … that is money that will be spent when it is necessary.   last time i looked a site could be developed and the ssl key just dropped in and nothing in the code was suppose to change.   what kind of deveolper work would be saved having that in advance?  a new domain operator may not have the cash to get his certificate … so he still trys his site … then he drops it in when things start working for him.   i think that path for domain operators shold almost be in the specs.
dA 2016-01-18 09:44:22 [item 19694#42632]
I can be like that and is better like that. It’s just extra work. We are talking about an outside door that can be accessed by anything and receive information to modify the database. It’s not intimately tied to the browser like when you are browsing a single site locked to a cookie. In order to be able to receive a out of band package from a browser it has to have security built into the channel. That means adding encryption software to the browser and other things. It is doable, just extra work than using SSL as the encryption and secure channel. The keys have to be negotiated and basically everything SSL does already.
seth 2016-01-18 09:52:32 [item 19694#42636]
hmmm … your saying that a thought moving from a different domain as authorized by a browner  needs more security that a thought being typed in on a   browser’s keyboard?   … er, why?
A browser cannot actually access two sites at the same time and be logged into both with cookies. You either proxy the information through your server which then sends it to the other site, or you use one of several browser tricks, like an iframe, or a script request, to send the information. All of those are not actually logged in, even the server poxy, so they require a secure negotiation to prove who they are, every time. The negotiation is all in the clear unless the transaction is https or it does it’s own security encryption.

Seth says
seth 2016-01-18 08:59:50 [item 19694#42611]
that’s not the approach i want to take.   I suggest opening a new domain targeted to a reach out.   fastblogit.com is already too deep into mine and mark’s mind to be an attractor for something new.  

maybe something like thinkingdomain.org … i don’t know … something catchy … a place to start fresh. 

then if we can get migration of thoughts all the really interesting stuff at fastblogit will still not be lost and can be migrated to the new domain.
Mark 2016-01-18 09:05:16 [item 19694#42615]
I think when we get to move items to other groups an author/owner can move stuff somewhere safe for his own pleasure & archive. Items can be made private from search.  Comments should be, but don’t seem so now. Hope someone backed up the old fbi1 database. For me, I was intending to triage my old stuff from fbi1 when things settle down a bit. Some theoretically unbiased machine doesn’t cut it for me.
dA 2016-01-18 09:08:48 [item 19694#42617]
Yes. I was feeling for the next most exciting thing to tigger bounce. That might just be it.
seth 2016-01-18 09:15:16 [item 19694#42619]
why not just , as you say “move stuff to another group” …  er, in another domain.   same move technology really, no?
dA 2016-01-18 09:19:47 [item 19694#42621]
Yes. Moving something to another domain is generally not harder, just a url change for the submit. The only real tricky part is validating permissions in both domains at once.
seth 2016-01-18 09:24:53 [item 19694#42625]
hmmm … well if a person has rights to both the from and the to group … then they should be able to just say migrate.    if it is from domain to domain, well the person’s identity must be the same.   i mean, is trans-domain identity tricky?  hmmm … 
dA 2016-01-18 09:28:54 [item 19694#42627]
It is. Not so much information wise, but making it secure so that any hacker cant utilize the channel maliciously takes a day or so of work. It would be easier if all your domains were https. You should consider purchasing ssl keys … would save developer work.
seth 2016-01-18 09:35:20 [item 19694#42629]
well you know that it’s maybe $300/year or so per domain for a ssl key … that is money that will be spent when it is necessary.   last time i looked a site could be developed and the ssl key just dropped in and nothing in the code was suppose to change.   what kind of deveolper work would be saved having that in advance?  a new domain operator may not have the cash to get his certificate … so he still trys his site … then he drops it in when things start working for him.   i think that path for domain operators shold almost be in the specs.
seth 2016-01-18 09:46:07 [item 19694#42633]
indidentally as resellers of inmotion services this can be marked up in a package … it is part of the business plan.   but selling a domain with a mandatory ssl is to add too mush to the buyer’s commitment.   so yes, it should be capable of being just dropped in when the new domain owner can afford it. 
dA 2016-01-18 09:50:13 [item 19694#42635]
Technically, according to what I understand about the new privacy laws on running a website, FBI already should be https. We take sensitive user information and passwords “in the clear”. That is technically against the law. Many people use the same passwords everywhere even their banks and anyone sniffing packets in a public place with a phone can see those in the clear. That’s why it is in the new laws that this stuff should be https already. Not to mention the site needs the required disclaimer publicly displayed because it uses cookies.
we are talking suggested standards here, not laws … otherwise quote the law don’t just wave at it.   i grant that we should have a ssl.   the only question is timing … and that is a decision that happens in a different flow … and it is not just me … it is our domain customer’s flow.