I agree with Tyrael on this one, in the regard that joind.in should be another way (probably the preferred one for most) of adding events but not the only way. As for the moderation, we could build a tool like we have for the github PR's (I have some time for this so I could work on it)?
That would allow us to moderate the submissions that come from the API and approve / reject them. Lorna, would it make sense to add a flag that we could manipulate to track the rejected ones? Regards, Stelian On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Lorna Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 January 2015 at 12:38, Paul Dragoonis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 27 Jan 2015 12:35, "Ferenc Kovacs" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Stelian Mocanita < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Not entirely sure about the status of that to be honest, in theory we >> >> should. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Hannes Magnusson < >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Didn't we have a patch to use joind.in already? >> >> > How about just merging that and be done with this? :/ >> >> > >> >> > -Hannes >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Stelian Mocanita >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Hello everyone, >> >> > > >> >> > > Even though we clearly state that "conference submissions should be >> >> > emailed >> >> > > to [email protected]" there are still a couple of >> conferences >> >> > > making their way into the events. >> >> > > >> >> > > I would propose adding an event type "Conference" to the drop down >> and >> >> > > trigger an error on submission for that event type, to avoid the >> case >> >> > where >> >> > > people do not read the first paragraph. >> >> > > >> >> > > What do you think? >> >> I'm here and willing to continue solving problems with code. We need to >> have a discussion on what we consider blocker issues and other ones that >> are not so serious. Then I can write the code to make it happen. Coding is >> the easy part :-) >> >> Let's pull Lorna in on this again. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > Best, >> >> > > Stelian >> >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm not really up-to-date with the discussion, but AFAIR Paul was >> working on the joind.in integration and I have two issues which I don't >> remember what was the consensus on: >> > 1, making joind.in mandatory for listing a conference would make us >> lose some confs (where the conf doesn't want to use joind.in, like >> ConFoo) >> > 2, we would still need some kind of approval/moderation system, >> otherwise anybody can just add the phpdotnet(or whatever else we decide to >> use) tag to their conference, and we can't do anything about that on >> joind.in. there was a mention that at least joind.in has a full-time >> moderation team, so the turnaround time for reports could be still better >> what we have now. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ferenc Kovács >> > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu >> > > I'm here but I'm not sure I have anything more to offer. We agreed on a > tag "phpdotnet" which we can encourage our users to use and you can get the > data here http://api.joind.in/v2.1/events?tags=phpdotnet (it is json if > you're not a web browser). Events won't be totally spam as they're > human-approved, but we don't specifically check tags as they're usually > added after event creation. > > We'll try hard to educate our users when they should use this tag (and I > can obviously edit as needed!) once you're actually using it. I hope this > this will reduce your workload while allowing the community to still get > the word out about their events. > > Does that help? > > Lorna > > > -- > Lorna Mitchell > http://lornajane.net > > >
