On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:35, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > It has a CouchDB logo on the front page :)
I think I covered this in my original email Jan. > Now, I am not suggesting that all of these are spam links. I know for certain > that many of these are CouchDB projects, or sites using CouchDB. What I'm > saying is that the entry is too short, and provides no justification for its > inclusion on this page. > > Back when the project was small, this was okay. So many people use CouchDB > now, that we cannot rely on simply knowing which is real or not any more. The > community is too diverse. And including a link to another site is not good > enough. The entry itself should justify its existence. There are too many links on this page for me to click through to every single one of them, every single time I need to weed out the spam. More to the point, I want to move this page away from being an exercise in vanity. Back when the project was small, this lis was great. As the project becomes larger, the usefulness shrinks. Imagine a list of sites that use MySQL, with no additional information. Why would you ever care about that page? So some random site is using CouchDB. So what? That is no longer useful to anyone. I don't think people "deserve" a link here just for using the project. This page is there to provide value to people evaluating CouchDB. What people want to know is HOW the site is using CouchDB, or WHY they chose CouchDB over some other technology. The more information the better. The information you provided in your email is a great first step. Now, my question is, why isn't that same information on the wiki? I think it should be, and I think we should have even more of it.
