It seems to me (jumping in the pool neck deep) that you might solve this simply by having a "moderated list" and an "unmoderated list" prefaced by a content warning.
Considering the issue from "the ground up" however I'm not sure that any "big long list" is all that useful. (I've had a site like this on the back-burner for years now... never got around to polishing it enough for release. So this is all in the spirit of "those that can't do criticize those that can." But seriously - I've given this a lot of thought.) Getting the total number of sites using CF seems pretty straightforward (or, more specifically, just as confused for CF as it is for everybody else). But is the total number of sites that really matters? It's an interesting number, to be sure - but I've seen a lot energy go into deciding whether this one site gets on a list. Is the number interesting enough to spend that kind of energy? Personally I would find it much more interesting to see specialized lists addressing CF's perceived flaws. I could think of a few examples right off the bat: 1) "CF Isn't Appropriate for Large Enterprises": Show me a list of large enterprises that are using it. 2) "CF Isn't Applicable to High Performance Apps": Show me that list too. 3) "CF Isn't Secure": Show me that list - especially the many government sites using it. You can do this for just about anything. "CF Costs too much for small sites": Show me a list of eCommerce Sites costing less than $100 a month to run (and the hosting providers that manage them). These lists don't have to be long (although that's nice) but it would be nice if they could be impressive. In my world naming five fortune-fifty companies that successfully use CF is more impressive than naming five-hundred nobodies (forgive me) that do. This is, definitely, MUCH harder to do than creating a single list - but all that energy your using to determine which sites get on that one list could be put towards the creation of smaller, focused much higher quality lists. As for porn... well, that's up to you. In my view it's kind of silly to restrict this simply on the basis of business: porn is a multi-billion dollar industry. You can easily reject hate-sites on both principle and moral grounds - they don't make a dime. ;^) But it is a slippery slope: personally I find the contents of many Christian sites to be just as hateful as most any racist site. I wouldn't put myself in the position of managing content - Adobe doesn't when they sell CF. Still, if the content of a site may be questionable you might list them under a prefaced list or list just the name but don't link it. In fact if you're worried about link-pits and scam sites you might just not link ANY of the sites on the list. The list is not there to promote those companies but the tool. Anyway, sorry for rambling. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Macromedia ColdFusion MX7 Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:271622 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
