Re: Drafts that can't be serious

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Good, contact those authors and tell them to use example.* instead

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:59, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Actually, this might be the start of a real problem. The ietf.org
>> has a great page rank value. Getting your domain into a url into
>> a draft on the IETF site has value. In this case, I noticed two
>> URLs that we would never put in real drafts, things to personal
>> domains where real authors would use "example.com". That's a very
>> simple objective rule that can be enforced. If we don't, we might
>> end up attracting spammers in attempts to bring up their page
>> ranking on search engines.
> 
> I would strongly suggest not making up new rules to solve problems
> that do not currently exist and probably never will.  Two I-D's from
> someone who doesn't understand the IETF does not make a crisis, and
> there are much easier ways to do SEO gaming than to write fake drafts.
> 
> I have always found the vast majority of drafts that go by aren't
> interesting to me because they're in areas I don't work in and don't
> understand very well.  Skipping a few more because they're incoherent
> isn't a problem.
> 
> On the other hand, a little grepping of the I-D directory finds 30
> drafts with references to one of my personal domains, most in drafts I
> did not write, and all in drafts that people would consider to be
> serious.  I don't mind, but I expect your new robot might.
> 
> R's,
> John





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]