RailsWebHosts page

1 view
Skip to first unread message

tomkarlo

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 10:14:05 AM3/10/09
to rubyonrails-wiki
http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/railswebhosts

Was this page just rolled over from the old Wiki in its entirety? It's
not in the right spot in the wiki (it's a subbranch of "pages" which
doesn't exist) and it's got a lot of garbarge. In an admittedly random
and unscientific sampling of about a dozen sites, about half were
either not hosting providers or no longer were in operation. Also, a
lot of the listings don't comply with the stated "30 word" guideline.

Should we blow out this information except for providers we are
immediately familiar with, correct the geography issues (or maybe even
break the page into regional sub-pages, since I doubt that someone
interested in EU hosting cares about China hosting) and let providers
who still care come back in and add their information? This seems like
one page where the outside information will populate fairly quickly
once active RoR hosts realize it's there and in usable condition.

I don't think any of us want to sit and verify that each of these 100-
odd providers is still actively operating, but that's really what has
to be done if we want to roll this information over from the old wiki
en masse. This kind of data tends to get stale very quickly and
apparently has gone sour.

Tom Karlo - t...@karlo.org - p: 917.916.1554
blog: http://karlo.org
linkedin: http://karlo.org/linkedin
twitter: http://karlo.org/twitter
vcard: http://karlo.org/vcard

Dave Stevenson

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 10:27:11 AM3/10/09
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, tomkarlo <t...@karlo.org> wrote:

http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/railswebhosts

Was this page just rolled over from the old Wiki in its entirety? It's
not in the right spot in the wiki (it's a subbranch of "pages" which
doesn't exist) and it's got a lot of garbarge.

Tom Karlo - t...@karlo.org - p: 917.916.1554


I believe it was copied straight from the old rails site.  I think the placement of it was not intentional - the url's of the old wiki entry and the new wiki entry match exactly.   I think the old wiki page had a bot that would regularly update the page with stale copies of the information as the changes people would make were always lost (my changes were always reverted.  I think that's probably why most of the information is old now.

Dave

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages