|
|
| Author |
Message |
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1048
|
 Posted: Dec 28, 2007 7:03pm Post subject: Kinda silly |
 |
|
http://searchirc.com/network/StarChat says that they are not indexed because scrawl can't do a /list .. uhm ok ... but channel listing is not the only tool SIRC offers.
Why can't networks choose for themselves the extent of their usage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Itsy
none
Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Dec 28, 2007 7:23pm Post subject: kinda silly |
|
|
| Is being able to access a list of channels a requirement for SIRC presence? If so, why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason
SearchIRC Developer
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 1150
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Dec 28, 2007 8:17pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This website is called search irc. There is no reason for us to list networks that we can't index. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1048
|
| Posted: Dec 28, 2007 8:35pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are far more things on and about IRC that you _can't_ search for than you can here at SearchIRC so I fail to see that as a satisfying reason. Perhaps ChannelSearchIRC.com is more a fitting name.
SearchIRC offers more tools than just channel searching, denying a listing for not allowing 1 single tool to function is not a valid reason to deny access to all the other tools offered. IMHO, by far the most popular tool is network pages, network ranks and usage graphs and lets not forget the forum. I've yet to have a single user visit that said they found my network on SearchIRC's channel list. Usually the forum or Network list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 1993
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Dec 29, 2007 3:23am Post subject: |
|
|
| from one perspective, SearchIRC began as a service to index and list channels found on the various networks (originally specific to Undernet, if my memory of the history of SIRC page in the help section serves me well enough). However, IRC is more than just listing channels - to me, it's about network exposure to the digital world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1048
|
| Posted: Dec 29, 2007 6:38am Post subject: |
|
|
| exactly my point pingbad, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Dec 29, 2007 7:56am Post subject: |
|
|
PingBad, you are close. Jason and I ran the AT&T server on Undernet. We created a website for AT&T that published Undernet's channel list in a searchable form. Unfortunately the project ended before that site went live. But while we were working on it we had a brainstorm. Wouldn't it be great if there was a website that listed ALL channels on ALL networks? Users wouldn't have to hop from one to another and run /list to find a subject of interest, they could visit one website and search a database that combined the /lists from all networks - and then join the channel with just a click. Jason said he could code such a thing. SearchIRC was born with 42 networks listed and indexed.
Katsklaw, you fail to realize that SearchIRC is a channel list data index. SIRC is literally built around the channel lists. Everything else - all the other data indexed, graphs, network pages, etc, is meant to supplement the channel list by giving users an overview of the network that hosts their favorite channels.
On the left side of SIRC's home page you will see a few registered users are on the site, and around 500 anons. Those registered users are mostly network administrators, who dominate this discussion board. But tens of thousands of anons from around the world visit SearchIRC every day to search for channels and join them. They do not search for the type of services a network runs, they do not compare the size of networks. They are not interested in the same type of information admins want to see. Every month our usage stats show *millions* of searches for channels.
We have admins writing to us with a list of channels - only list these, not the rest. We have admins who want us to list only warez channels. We have admins who want us to filter out the warez channels. We have admins who want us to only visit their network in the evenings when more people are on so their average is bigger. We have admins who do not want us to list their channels but to publish all the other information about the network. We have admins who do not want us to publish information about the network but list their channels. We have metanetworks who want their channels listed 27 times because they have 27 networks on their network. We have admins who show 30,000 people in /lusers but their largest listed channel has 12 people.
SIRC visits networks, gathers the SAME data from every network, and publishes it on this website. That is what keeps our data accurate, that is what keeps users visiting SIRC, and keeps users joining your IRC channels.
Any network can participate, or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1048
|
| Posted: Dec 29, 2007 8:24am Post subject: |
|
|
Mary, ok point taken.
What exactly is wrong with providing all those admins with a choice as to how they are listed?
You say any network may participate, that's wonderful and thank you very much for the service you provide. What sucks is it's an all or nothing thing as far as displaying this information to the millions of users you claim use the site. It's like you are saying "sure it's your network, but we will do what we damned well please with the data and you have no right to tell us how it can be displayed". Something is fundamentaly wrong with that IMHO.
I'm sure SearchIRC is in complete control of how it's data is used, why can't I as an admin reserve the same right with *MY* data I provide to your service?
Network settings for FOONet:
[x] Allow channels to be displayed?
[] Allow channels lists to be searched?
[x] List topics?
[x] Allow irc:// links?
[] Allow java links?
None of the above options exist. The only options that exist are "tell us about your data" types. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason
SearchIRC Developer
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 1150
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Dec 29, 2007 10:12am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, all or nothing. We connect as a normal user, and we do /list. It's really that simple. IRC is what it is. Putting in a bunch of options to filter out info, or hide things is putting blinders over what a network really is. We used to have people who demanded warez channels be blocked. Or sex channels be removed. Satisfying all the demands would result with a completely useless website. Therefor we do no filtering. No options. If we can get a channel list, we make it searchable. If a channel doesn't want to be listed, they can +s it. IRC has the functionality to deal with all of this. Adding an artificial additional layer on top of it is counter productive and makes the data presented on SearchIRC invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 1993
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Dec 29, 2007 10:42pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | | exactly my point pingbad, thank you. |
Yer welcome there, kat | Mary wrote: | | Those registered users are mostly network administrators, who dominate this discussion board. |
Truth be told, I haven't had the +N in at least a couple of years - and I enjoy the community boards (spammers and playground tiffs aside). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1048
|
| Posted: Dec 30, 2007 4:18pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason wrote: | | Yes, all or nothing. We connect as a normal user, and we do /list. It's really that simple. IRC is what it is. Putting in a bunch of options to filter out info, or hide things is putting blinders over what a network really is. We used to have people who demanded warez channels be blocked. Or sex channels be removed. Satisfying all the demands would result with a completely useless website. Therefor we do no filtering. No options. If we can get a channel list, we make it searchable. If a channel doesn't want to be listed, they can +s it. IRC has the functionality to deal with all of this. Adding an artificial additional layer on top of it is counter productive and makes the data presented on SearchIRC invalid. |
1> The irc channel setting it's self +s should not be a solution. They shouldn't be required to hide themselves from other users on their network just to hide from you. The channel ops in most cases don't even know it's been indexed. The channel shouldn't be responsible for hiding it's self from a 3rd parties outside the network that the channel is on.
SearchIRC is not so popular that everyone has heard of it. There are still hundreds of thousands of users than have no clue as to what you do.
2> Since it's the network's data, they have the right to choose who it shares the data with and to what extent, I think it's rather conceited of you to think otherwise.
3> Networks that opt-out of your services for one reason or another also taint the overall results. Any indexing service is inaccurate at best, including yours. Lets also not forget the thousands of dead networks you still list and bloat the number of existing networks to an unbelievable level. If SearchIRC is indeed a channel listing service, then remove the dead networks as they are not contributing to your project anyway.
So I really don't see how filtering will make a single bit of difference. other than a vague attempt at justifying a lack of interest in the wishes of those that contribute to your project.
Good Day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason
SearchIRC Developer
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 1150
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Dec 30, 2007 7:10pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | The irc channel setting it's self +s should not be a solution. They shouldn't be required to hide themselves from other users on their network just to hide from you.
...
Since it's the network's data, they have the right to choose who it shares the data with and to what extent |
Precisely. The network decides if they want to be listed on SearchIRC. Yet the channels can opt out if they wish. We show only what's publicly available on the network. They're free to ban the indexer at any time, and we'll stop visiting.
Let me put it another way for you: People harass the crap out of me when they want something done differently, or something is broken. This is the first time in 7 years that someone's brought up disliking having channels listed. The point of submitting a network to SearchIRC is to have channels listed! I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Dec 30, 2007 9:56pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | | 1> The irc channel setting it's self +s should not be a solution. They shouldn't be required to hide themselves from other users on their network just to hide from you. The channel ops in most cases don't even know it's been indexed. The channel shouldn't be responsible for hiding it's self from a 3rd parties outside the network that the channel is on. |
katsklaw, no one is required to do anything. In fact, if the network does not sign up, their channels will not appear on SearchIRC.
Once they DO sign up however, our bot visits the network, runs the command that the admin has submitted that will produce a channel list, and we publish that information. It is not OUR responsibility to build in a NEW function that would allow admins to set filters on our website in order to control which, if any, of their channels are published in our directory.
That functionality must be done at the server level. Rather than harassing us (and I assume you are also in contact with every other IRC channel list website to comply with your demands) you need to contact the authors of irc server and irc client software.
| Quote: | | SearchIRC is not so popular that everyone has heard of it. There are still hundreds of thousands of users than have no clue as to what you do. |
Yes, sad, isn't it?
| Quote: | | 2> Since it's the network's data, they have the right to choose who it shares the data with and to what extent, I think it's rather conceited of you to think otherwise. |
It is not the act of a conceited person to spend years of his time and tens of thousands of dollars of his own income running a service that benefits IRC networks that he has no part in whatsoever.
You need to remember that data IS the network's data. It belongs to the network. The networks come to SearchIRC. The administrators sign up. They ASK us to gather their channel list and other data knowing it will be published on our website. They tell us what server to connect to. What command to run to get their channel lists. We publish what is there. If a channel does not want to be in the list they can opt out. At ANY time.
There is currently NO accommodation for channels that want to be seen by SOME people but not by ALL people. If such a modification was to be made, it is not the job of SearchIRC. Again, that is something for IRC server and client coders to consider.
| Quote: | | 3> Networks that opt-out of your services for one reason or another also taint the overall results. Any indexing service is inaccurate at best, including yours. |
Very few networks opt out, and those that do opt out of all listing services. Each indexing service is accurate within their own database. Not all networks sign up to all websites, and the number of active networks on each site varies by hundreds, perhaps thousands, so the differences between IRC listing sites does vary substantially.
| Quote: | | So I really don't see how filtering will make a single bit of difference. other than a vague attempt at justifying a lack of interest in the wishes of those that contribute to your project. |
Jason isn't lying. I have read every single post and every single email to ever come into SearchIRC. You are the first person to suggest allowing admins control over the basic data we feel is essential to the operations of SearchIRC as a channel and network directory. I see only two other people supporting your idea.
Jason bends over backwards trying to accommodate every reasonable request and incorporate it into this website. We have both explained that your request is not reasonable. It would diminish the usefulness of SearchIRC for the majority of our users. Channel lists are essential to the discovery of mergers, and rooting out metanetworks and other tricks admins have to get their networks listed more than once. Allowing admins to "opt out" of listing their channels would result in a glut of thousands of "new" networks that are nothing more than additional names for existing networks - and we would have no way of discovering the duplicity. You demand filters, without thinking how those filters would affect the functionality of this site. Our bots constantly refresh data. Common use of such filters by admins would slow SearchIRC to a dead stop.
You don't LISTEN, you just hurl insults.
Stop. Even if you insult us, it is NOT going to happen. For GOOD reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 1993
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Dec 31, 2007 12:34am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mary wrote: | | I have read every single post and every single email to ever come into SearchIRC. |
<offtopic>Did ya get my email asking for a SIRC meet and greet next year?</offtopic> | Quote: | | Jason bends over backwards trying to accommodate every reasonable request and incorporate it into this website. We have both explained that your request is not reasonable. It would diminish the usefulness of SearchIRC for the majority of our users. Channel lists are essential to the discovery of mergers, and rooting out metanetworks and other tricks admins have to get their networks listed more than once. Allowing admins to "opt out" of listing their channels would result in a glut of thousands of "new" networks that are nothing more than additional names for existing networks - and we would have no way of discovering the duplicity. You demand filters, without thinking how those filters would affect the functionality of this site. Our bots constantly refresh data. Common use of such filters by admins would slow SearchIRC to a dead stop. |
I think katsklaw's idea here is to allow an admin to control how much data that SIRC gathers is actually displayed on a given network's page (ie: the channels are still /listed, and still stuck in the DB, but wether they are shown to the public or not is entirely at the discretion of the people who can edit the network pages - in some cases, this could actually speed up SIRC's responsiveness [that is, less database queries getting names and topics]). I, however, am not for nor against this notion - for the record |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Dec 31, 2007 6:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PingBad wrote: | | <offtopic>Did ya get my email asking for a SIRC meet and greet next year?</offtopic> |
I'll come to NZ for a meet and greet any time you want. But Jason is antisocial in real life. Hides in his office. Doesn't talk to anyone. Growls when anyone comes to the door.
| Quote: | | I think katsklaw's idea here is to allow an admin to control how much data that SIRC gathers is actually displayed on a given network's page (ie: the channels are still /listed, and still stuck in the DB, but wether they are shown to the public or not is entirely at the discretion of the people who can edit the network pages - in some cases, this could actually speed up SIRC's responsiveness [that is, less database queries getting names and topics]). I, however, am not for nor against this notion - for the record |
I see what you're saying. Rather than visiting networks every few minutes 24/7 to gather data we could shut the indexer off and let each admin use SearchIRC as a place to promote their own network as they see fit, without providing any live data at all if that's their choice.
In fact, rather than the bloated site we have now, SearchIRC could be a single webpage. Just a list of IRC networks, each hotlinked to a network's url, where the admin has full control over whether or not to show channels, which client to feature, what data to show, etc.
That is quite doable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
