Re: Latest blog post
On 12580 March 1977, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On 08/22/2011 05:15 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
>> > the latest debian-med blog post (syndicated on Planet Debian, CC'd)
>> > http://debianmed.blogspot.com/2011/08/experimenting-with-amazon-cloud-and.html> > has raised some eyebrows.
>> > First off, it should be somehow stated which person wrote/posted the
>> > particular post for team-based blogs. This blog post was posted by "s",
>> > which is not enough IMHO.
>> It was me.
This should be *very* visible in the post itself. We generally require
Team Blogs, like this is, to prominently state who made it. Good
examples are the DebConf and the Debian Sysadmin blog, where its
basically
"Blog title" <Posted by HUMAN NAME>
>> > Second, the content might be appropriate to the specific debian-med
>> > audience, but advertising commercial cloud services and/or payback
>> > systems (even with obviously good intentions) might be considered
>> > unsolicited spam by other Planet Debian readers, as it indeed did:
>> > <Clint> yay, spam
>> Yip, agreed, I had seen it on the planet and did not like it there, either.
>> I apologise.
>> For the future, is there a way to have some bits not forwarded?
>> Or to have them only selectively forwarded? Well, the mailing
>> list, probably.
> AFAIK it is posisble to just syndicate posts with certain tags on Planet
> Debian. I have re-added the CC to planet@debian.org, hopefully somebody
> can clarify/advise.
Well, the way is simple: Planet only reads rss feeds. Setup your blog to
have a seperate feed with only those tags included that you want to
appear on Planet.
As the post was still visible now I just disabled Debian Med in planets
config. Feel free to reenable it as soon as
a) this "spammy" post no longer appears in the feed planet reads, and
b) its clearly visible who made the post.
--
bye, Joerg
<exa> Snow-Man: Please don't talk to me. You have demonstrated yourself
sufficiently. There is a serious matter being talked.
<Snow-Man> exa: It's hardly serious, it's about you.
Reply to: