On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Should we include the AFKIndex? It is a good thing to have as many > indexes as > possible, and our policy is and has always been to link to indexes > purely > according to their value for finding content. > > However, the AFK index is an auto-generated index *with > activelinks*. Sites > are apparently automatically added to the uncategorised section. The > site > owner claims he will remove child porn sites, however near the top > of the > uncategorised section, we have what appears to be a child porn > site ... with > an activelink (!!). All our other indexes except Another Index > manually add > sites and don't link to CP at all. > > Advice? > > USK at 2L-k2U32b3yIl2~YjBU7-- > QJPTtixSwHZxYOuGjS3A0 > ,QJBd6zpJgEsijJGQNNcwUhsrW5vJ8VtlmNX5ka2~dlU,AQACAAE/AFKindex/4/
Ascetically, it's a *very* nice interface. Gives more useful information than the activelink index & anotherindex, too. Seeing that there is reason to believe that this particular entry has not been patrolled yet, I see little cause for it being cause for rejection. In fact, given the nature of freenet, there is no guarantee that child porn may not later appear in *any* of the indexes presently included in the defaults. The best we could expect is for it to be rejected later if found to be undesirable. For an index the downside I see is how many are uncatagorized, but making it a default bookmark may encourage the author to categorize and maintain it more effectively. Perhaps we could suggest to the author that unpatrolled entries not have activelinks? -- Robert Hailey
