Talk:QDB/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

qdb

bash.org is the original "QDB" and coined the phrase. It is the official name (and has been since the beginning of the project. The sheer popularity of the site, coupled with the fact that we routinely push several orders of magnitude more traffic and volume than any other de-facto QDB copycat project, virtually ensures people looking up the "QDB" acronym (just like people who google for "bashing") are interested in the original and most popular QDB.

The bash.org article has a redir for disambiguous uses, however I posit that the chances of someone seeking alternative and niche "QDB"'s who decided to use the same name are virtually nil.

The redir should stay.

/Blaxthos 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, that's completely false. not only is bash.org not the original qdb -- as your own bash.org article clearly specifies -- but if you take a look at the qdb that predated bash.org's inception, you'll see that it clearly calls itself "The QDB." to recap:

  • you claim bash.org is the original QDB that existed before the QDB that your own bash.org article states you inherited. i suggest viewing time_travel.
  • you claim bash.org coined the phrase QDB when the QDB project existed before bash.org. similarly humorous.
  • the popularity of bash.org has nothing to do with why there shouldn't be a disambig page. sorry, it just doesn't.
  • similarly, 'bashing' is not 'qdb.'
  • google for 'quote database' and see if bash.org is the only result.

i don't think i need to say anything else. anyone can read this and simply see blaxthos does NOT have a NPOV. this isn't biased-self-promotion-pedia. please use your own resources to promote your own site.

Markusbradley 05:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

one, learn how to properly respond to posts (using wiki tags) before acting all clued about wikipedia. i may not know much, but I make a point to try and learn how things work before going to criticize others.
two, I think you're misunderstanding "project" and "website." bash.org is (and has been for years) the home of the project called QDB. Try and understand the difference... kind of like sourceforge.net is a website that hosts all sorts of projects.
bash.org is the original projcet, which was handed down directly in a linear succession since its inception... it is the continuous holder and inceptor of the Quote DataBase. That the owner gave up on and gave away the ORIGINAL QDB, which Ninety (and shortly thereafter, I) accepted and turned into a success (something DigDug was unable to do). Once the project gained international populartiy THEN DigDug wanted to come back, and then started another project and tried to name it the same thing -- QDB.us is not a fork, it is an attempt to take back a decision now regretted. As the history of bash.org itself indicates (and which I helped author), the very first link to the project (which became bash.org) was digdug.cx/qdb. So, this project coined the term QDB, and has operated continuously except for the short time it took to transfer to bash.org shortly after DigDug renounced all claim to The QDB.
Now, given that the tag-along projects garner a miniscule portion of the interest in "QDB," do you really think that somoene who wants info on QDB is really looking for a site that barely has any activity or notariety at all? Or, perhaps mayber they're looking for the real deal? If the interest of wikipedia is to provide the most accurate information most easily, I posit that most anyone typing in "QDB" would indeed be looking for the original, and the one that gets all the traffic.
Also, I think the fact that you created a wiki account specifically to make issue where there really isn't one. The NPOV dispute was two years ago, btw, and we've had no problems since. Nonetheless, I will request admin involvement at this point. /Blaxthos 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
what's the definition of a fork? according to you, i don't believe any forks exist, other than bash.org itself. but then, you'll maintain that it's not a fork, but the evolution of the original project. can you clearly define 'fork' and 'clone' for me? thanks.
this is a bizarrely convoluted semantic issue with rules and guidelines and boundaries and explanations that exist only in your head. that spells 'bias,' not fact. as always, the immediate use of condescending tone in your replies is appreciated. you don't need to carry over your insecurities and complexes into wikipedia. Markusbradley 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Response

I am responding to a request at the Mediation Cabal, and will try to help out to resolved your dispute. I don't want to be a judge here, but just a third party to help you sort out this problem.

First of all could you please stop editing the page until this is resolved. To keep reverting it before an agreement has been reached is pointless and would put you guys in danger of violating the 3 revert rule which could lead to blocks on your accounts by administrators. I will be posting more thoughts shortly once I review the case a little more.--Konstable 01:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have never heard of either of these sites, so I will make no assumption on popularity or significance of either.

I think the history of the origins is rather irrelavent in this particular discussion. We should focus on what should be done here at Wikipedia. I will write down some statements/proposals below, anyone who's involved please comment on whether you agree or disagree with them. Please give reasons without going into history of the two websites, just focus on the current situtation. Also please don't accuse each other of anything, refer only to the situation and not to each other.--Konstable 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all there definitely does have to be a disambiguation page per Wikipedia policy - there are two or more sites that are both featured and share "QDB" in their name. So the question should be whether the page QDB should be a disambiguation page, or whether it should redirect to some specific article.--Konstable 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Proposal: QDB page redirects to one of the articles, then both Bash.org and QDB.us page should link to a common disambiguation page (for example QDB (diambiguation)) using {{Otheruses4}} or {{for}} Anyone going to QDB would end up at one article, but if it is not what they're looking for would have an easy option to go to where they really wanted. Should be used only if one web site is overwhelmingly more well known than another.--Konstable 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos Response

  • I ceased all edits once the revert thing began, and immediately called for assistance.
  • I definitely agree with the disambiguation page for each site, like we see on the NSA page ("for other uses...").
  • bash.org is immensely more well known and more used than the other site, by several orders of magnitude. Bash.org gets around 2 million pageloads (not hits) a day, and runs around 125k-200k unique users per day. QDB.us might get a few hundred per day. I don't know how to offer "proof" other than the old "ask around" response. I think the fact that the word "bashed" has obtained its own meaning gives it a lot of credit. At any rate, if you pop onto most any irc network and ask what the QDB is, you'll be pointed to bash.org (as I think the QDB page should on wiki).
Thanks for the quick response! Color me impressed.

/Blaxthos 06:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While certainly not as popular as bash.org, "a few hundred per day" is somewhat of an understatement. QDB.us serves up about 20,000-25,000 pages and 5,000 unique users per day. --Peaceduck.

Markusbradley response

  • as originally stated, disambig page needed. voting for the latter proposal. Markusbradley 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I have looked at Alexa.com to compare the traffic estimates: Bash.org is ranked #10,856 with 1,368 sites linking to it, and QDB.us is ranked #81,738 with 58 sites linking to it. It does seem that Bash.org is quite a bit more popular. But let's look at the effect this would have on the readers looking for information on QDB, because that's what's importnat here.

Keep in mind those alexa stats do not take into account the XML feed, which streams as much data (more on some days) as the web traffic. I believe the margin to be much wider than indicated by web traffic alone... even if QDB.us also has XML, it is safe to assume that the XML stats would also be widely diverse and ergo the margin may be as much as twice as wide. /Blaxthos 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
where is the bash.org xml feed? you mention it as if it is extremely significant to your traffic and popularity, but it doesn't exist. this is a minor point to mention, and i am only doing it as a response. Markusbradley 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To Blaxthos - do you feel that users would be disadvantaged if instead of going straight to Bash.org after typing in QDB they would get to QDB.us? It seems to me that this would not be such big of a deal, because Bash.org is still on that list and is easily accessible, but the current state would also be helpful to users looking for QDB.us (even if it's a minority).--Konstable 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I was meant to say it is a minority, compared to Bash.org, but it is still pretty significantly popular.--Konstable 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the interests of the most people, and the community writ large, would be best served by redirecting to the bash.org page. See further down for a more complete answer. /Blaxthos 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To Markusbradley, Peaceduck, and anyone else supporting the current state - QDB.us does seem to be quite a lot less popular than Bash.org, and I don't quite understand why IRCQuotes is here also - even though it's a similar project it does not use the acronym QDB. So without IRCQuotes, this is just a disambiguation page between two articles. Would it really matter if a user looking for QDB would end up on Bash.org which then would have a note on top saying that this is not QDB.us and providing a link to QDB.us? Really it would still involve the same number of clicks.--Konstable 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IRCQuotes is a self-proclaimed quote database, according to the article, and also was created as a clone of bash.org. The acronym QDB is Quote DataBase, and it's too generic to not have a disambiguation page. Markusbradley 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
if you want to talk about the origins of the term QDB as it's used in the context of an irc quote database, it's important to note that it was, quite technically, coined by DigDig who now employs it on his site qdb.us. the term was coined by him for the qdb project, which then became bash.org, with DigDug later creating qdb.us.
The QDB is a project, not a term. As previously stated, the QDB was a project started by DigDug, who later renounced it and passed it on. If someone is looking for "The QDB", he is in all likelyhood looking for the project called The QDB. However, this should be a discussion about what best serves the interests of the community, not a symantics argument over the QDB as an acronym as opposed to the (proper noun) name of the project started and passed on. /Blaxthos 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
true, bash.org is more popular, but it's a good move to have a disambig page because there are many projects and sites which have the QDB label. there are open source quote databases (like osqdb and rash), non-irc-related quote databases, and the abbreviation even takes on different meanings in different industries (financial, etc). it would make sense to start a disambiguation page now for the many takes on QDBs that exist and will come to exist. bash.org is not the only 'quote database,' nor is it the largest. the only reason it has such significance here is due to its notoriety among the interweb folk.
Exactly my point! The reason it is so significant attests to the fact that the redir should go directly to it. /Blaxthos 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
in a general context, a quote database applies to more than just an IRC quote database. there are multiple QDBs. i'm all for IRC Quote Database redirecting to bash.org. Markusbradley 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
All subsequent "QDB"s have their roots (in concept, naming, operation, and even appearance in many cases) in The QDB project that has resided at bash.org for years.
Isn't the purpose of the wikipedia to give the most number of people the most accurate information with the least amount of effort? If that is the case, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the majority of people seeking information on "the QDB" would be looking for the project with the most historical precedent and the most traffic (by a substantial margin)? I believe the difference is so substantial here that the one or two out of ten who might seek other QDB's could click the ambig/redir notice at the top of the article?
/Blaxthos 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
the project with the most historical precedent to the acronym 'qdb' in the context of an irc quote database would be digdug.cx/quotes, which, for all intents and purposes, is now qdb.us. don't forget that this digdug did coin the term, created the qdb project over which you so vehemently argue, and now he operates a project with an identical name to the one he first created.
I respectfully disagree. There is no "historical" context -- bash.org is the original project, named as such, since day one. However, as the moderator explained, this is not a forum for trying to argue the legitimacy (or lack thereof) for QDB.us, this discussion is to determine what is most useful for the wikipedia. /Blaxthos 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
i can't follow your arguments here. you call the project QDB, then bash.org, then QDB, then bash.org. first you pass the project off as having the official name of 'the quote database' so that the redirect makes sense, then you pass the project off as having the official name of 'bash.org.' furthermore, there actually is historical context, as it cited specifically in the actual article on Bash.org. i'm not sure how you can say that there isn't any historical context to 'qdb' when, in the bash.org article, it clearly states there is. Markusbradley 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
people submitting to bash.org call it 'bashing,' not 'QDBing.' a user of wikipedia wanting information on this 'bash' will, more than likely, look for 'bash' or 'bash.org' -- not 'qdb.' until we can detect that every user going to the 'qdb' article really wants to go to the article on bash.org -- and that the traffic here is significant enough to warrant an immediate redirect -- i think a disambiguation page neither hurts user friendliness nor detracts from the amount of users visiting Bash.org.
"until we can detect that every user going to the 'qdb' article really wants to go to the article on bash.org" -- This is not the level of proof necessary to warrant a redirect. If the majority of people are interested in "The QDB" (bash.org) -- and they are (by a hefty margin) -- the interests are best served by a direct redir. /Blaxthos 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
because the official title of your site is bash.org, the article on bash.org should be bash.org. however, the QDB project was created by one person who now has another site that bears the same QDB label. i don't think there is a significant portion of users online who go to wikipedia looking for 'qdb' who expect to go to the article on bash.org. you keep changing your statement on the name of the project to be bash.org, qdb.. whatever fits the moment. check this: wiki search for QDB Markusbradley 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
By following your logic, one could demand that any article that shares a name would both have to go to a disambiguation page -- for example, someone searching for "bash" would go to a disambiguation page instead of directly to the page for the Bourne Again SHell. However, I have no doubt in my mind that most people searching for "bash" are interested in the shell, and so likewise it should go to the bash article first, with a disambiguation notice at the top for "the rest." Likewise, I also have no doubt that people interested in "QDB" or "The QDB" are interested in bash.org, and like the moderator said, anyone interested in other projects can follow a disambiguation notice at the top. With the popularity levels between the two sites being so disproportionate, and the virtual lack of "QDB" used in any other context besides the name of some niche database project (which has no wiki entry at all), I don't see how one could argue the other side of this and still claim to have wiki's best interests in mind. /Blaxthos 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
how did you arrive at that by following my logic? i suggest you google for QDB, quote+database. the official 'quote database' label for the project name is shared by two separate and equally legitimate entities, bash.org and qdb.us. 'the project' was created by the same person: digdug. both are officially 'QDB' because they came from the same person. bash.org is the host of what was the original, qdb.us is host to what was the original plus improvements. they both share the same name and they're both the same project and they were both created by the same person (the project, not the bash.org domain). BASH (the shell) is incredibly different to bash.org, and until major organizations bundle bash.org with their distributions, i don't see how a disambiguation page would be necessary between BASH and Bash.org. it's INCREDIBLE that the bash.org article even has this much force behind it. it's a website with IRC quotes. Markusbradley 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
there is still a link to bash.org on the disambig page; taking bash.org's popularity into consideration, it is only reasonable that it be placed first. furthermore, Bash.org's own article is 'bash.org' and not 'qdb,' the site's self-proclaimed official name. it seems like if the case that QDB is the true title of the project, you should move the bash.org article to QDB and have Bash.org act as a redirect only. in that case, though, i still think a disambiguation page would be necessary.
it's not a semantics issue that the QDB label is too generic to exist without disambiguation. [User:Markusbradley|Markusbradley]] 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The term is not very generic, and were we able to visit the hit count of the two articles, I think it would be apparent that most anyone typing in QDB is looking for bash.org. The only metrics I can say might be applicable are:
  1. the edit history of bash.org vs qdb.us, specifically the number of users who contribute to the article and the frequency with which they update it, and even if you discount my edits the community clearly has more interest in bash.org.
  2. the traffic experienced by both sites, which also clearly shows that most people are looking for "The QDB."
/Blaxthos 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
it's interesting that you cite the edit history on bash.org. i encourage people to view the edit history to see the amount of activity and edits done by blaxthos, the maintainer of bash.org. you, sir, are the foremost activist and revisor of content on the bash.org article. you cannot expect to cite your own POV'd edits on the project that you maintain as evidence of the article's superior importance. you maintain the bash.org project and you've done everything in your power to contribute as MUCH as possible to the article at an insane and almost daily pace.
please, do not attempt to squash the harmless disambiguation page between all projects that either use the acronym QDB or contain the words 'quote database.' the current state of the QDB article is very fair and presents the user with far more information. it's reasonable and justifiable and detracts no users from Bash.org. there is more than one project legitimately titled QDB right now, and the acronym has more meanings than just an IRC quote database. let 'Bash.org' point to Bash.org, let 'Qdb.us' point to Qdb.us, and let QDB provide disambiguation between any current or future articles that work off the QDB acronym. Markusbradley 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines posted by the moderator.

Proposal: QDB page redirects to one of the articles, then both Bash.org and QDB.us page should link to a common disambiguation page ... Anyone going to QDB would end up at one article, but if it is not what they're looking for would have an easy option to go to where they really wanted. Should be used only if one web site is overwhelmingly more well known than another.--Konstable 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this not the case? Does any of this other stuff matter? /Blaxthos 05:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos' NPOV

i don't think blaxthos can be considered a reliable source in this discussion. to be fair, he may have cooled down some, but the relationship with bash.org is just too strong to overlook.

here's just some of blaxthos' edits on the bash.org article:

  • [1] here blaxthos notes factual inaccuracies in a very non-wiki-standard way. note that these facts are now items in the Bash.org article that blaxthos has almost defended in this talk section.
  • [2] blaxthos changes his mind and removes the entire section.
  • [3] blaxthos decides to remove all links to other, competing QDBs, including qdb.us.
  • [4] a repeat of the above.
  • [5] blaxthos deletes the history of bash.org because it contains qdb.us.
  • [6] more censoring.
  • [7] oop, blaxthos nuked the history again because it mentions digdug and qdb.us.
  • [8] blaxthos clears the history again.
  • [9] again nuking the history.
  • [10] blaxthos' edits of history and external links referred to as vandalism.

blaxthos seems to have changed his opinion of the details which he fought so hard to remove.

the IP used to edit belongs to blaxthos, as is evident in his edits (see link #1). but, with some unnecessary detective work:

  • 218.53.21.64.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer router.bmj.net.
  • "bmj.net" Stream URL:, http://radio.bmj.net. Stream ICQ:, 2940197. Stream AIM:, Blaxthos
  • nameservers are ns1/2.bash.org.

noting the obvious bias above, i don't believe blaxthos is acting in the best interests of wikipedia with his opinion on the QDB redirect. this isn't my opinion or some sort of conjecture. if you view the links above, it is the only conclusion any lucid person can reach. he seems to really loathe digdug and qdb.us for some reason, and it is obvious that, based on his past performance and edits, he will continue to act in his own interests.

keep the disambiguation page the way it is. Markusbradley 18:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Response

  1. This entire section has nothing to do with the current issue. The current issue has nothing to do with disputes of point of view.
  2. All your 'evidence' is very outdated (over two years). All outstanding issues were resolved, the information was re-integrated into the article in a more appropriate way, and I adjusted my views to align with the WikiWay. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, or changing my views when needed. I am a reasonable person.
  3. Even if you discount the edits I've done over the years, you will notice that the wiki community on the whole has contributed much more to bash.org than to QDB.us articles.
  4. The current discussion is regarding the best interests of the wikipedia.

You conveniently avoid the meat of the issue: when the majority of the readership is interested in The QDB, the redirection should reflect what is most often desired/required. There is absolutely no question that people are most likely interested in the bash.org article. Likewise, it is inappropriate to ask 100 people to have to jump through extra steps to get the information they require so that maybe two or three people can find QDB.us more easily. It is far more likely that anyone searching for "QDB.us" specifically will already know the site, as well as understand the disabiguation.

This really looks like an attempt by the disgruntled QDB.us community to sponge some legitimacy by association. I don't see any legitimate argument against the direct redir except "we want to be a QDB too!", however that doesn't make it more likely that people searching for QDB are looking for the original (and most popular) QDB Project.

If you really want to jump on the NPOV bandwagon, please note that you created a wiki account to specifically make this an issue. I have no doubt that your own interests align with trying to increase the popularity of QDB.us by making it appear to be as desired as bash.org (when this is clearly not the case). Do you suggest you have no tie to either project?

And, by the by, I could go and create a wiki account and use it to appear to have no ties to either project... we both know what's really going on, eh? I'm just not going to pretend to be uninvolved because my position is solid.

You have already used the moniker "markus bradley" before, and admitted to me using it when trying to appear neutral and legitimate -- see the Talk:Bash.org from a while back. For anyone interested: Markus Bradley is an alias Josho (a former moderator for bash.org) he uses when he wished to appear to be a neutral party. Josho is the same individual who admitted to hacking into bash.org and posting the contents of the database to usenet and the web several months ago. There is currently an open FBI case on the matter. I will be happy to provide logs from Josho showing both his admission to pretending to be uninvolved (aka "Markus") as well as his illegal intrusion into protected computer systems.

It is absolutely insulting to me, as well as to the Wiki community, that you want to try and use this as a way to air your spite. It is even more insulting that you try and pretend to be a neutral party. At least be honest, dude.

Do you have any other logic than "there is more than one use of the letters QDB"? Because, if so, I believe the moderator already pointed out that this situation is exactly the case where a direct redirection is warranted -- "one web site is overwhelmingly more well known than another." This is undisputed, so I fail to see how you've presented any evidence to the contrary.

/Blaxthos 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

yawn. bring in things that don't have to do with the issue at hand. i'm not sure what tirade blaxthos is on, but rest assured his response should solidify the need for a disambiguation page. feel free to contact him and myself. there's not much more that needs to be said on this issue, since obviously it's going in a bizarrely personal direction. Markusbradley 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is that why you painstakingly made a section (with lots of references) about a POV dispute resolved two years ago, yet completely ignore the criteron set forth by the moderator? Further discussion seems pointless -- you obviously are making issue because of other personal gripes. In your conversation with me on AIM (which I should post) you blatantly admit as much. /Blaxthos
actually it's pretty relevant since your past, present, and future edits on wikipedia for the article all show a very obvious bias. you correct semantic things no one else can argue (fork, clone) because the definitions are all up in your head with you unwilling to share. also, two years is an overstatement.
these things actually do apply to the criteria set forth by the moderator, but i don't think things like some mythical and super-scary fbi case really do apply that well. at least my input was still strictly related to wikipedia and your performance here. but, leave it to blaxthos to overkill the ante to show his true class of character. next you'll probably track down my address and social security number and post it on wikipedia to further your case. pretty petty. Markusbradley 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


My (temporary) departure

Sorry everyone, but due to some real life matters I need to take a rather urgent Wikibreak. I may return in just a couple of days or it could be more than a week. I have put up a request for another mediator to relieve me, hopefully one will contact you soon. Sorry for any inconvinience this may cause.--Konstable 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, forget that. It all got sorted much faster than I thought. So I am back and will respond here some time today.--Konstable 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/d/b/Talk%7EQDB_Archive_1_7356.html"