> I agree with the notion that "contrib" be removed
> from the main distribution. There is, however, a
> disconnect between supporting projects and the main system.
>
> Take a look at the www.postgresql.org web site.
> Most people visually filter out the side bars. I've
> been looking over effectiveness of paid advertisements
> in the various search engines, and the numbers are clear
> in that the paid links at the top of the page get the hits
> while the side hits get almost completely ignored. What I
> think this means is that people looking for projects will
> simply filter out any reference to gborg.
>
> What would be good, is to bring gborg a little closer to
> PostgreSQL by putting a link in the main site menu. Rather than:

What would be even better IMHO is to bring "gborg" a little close to
English or a word that makes sense to people visiting the PostgreSQL
site.

Is it "g-b-org" or "g-borg" or what?  Is it a carry-over from the Great
Bridge days or some lame hacker reference to the Borg?  I understand the
reference to Great Bridge, but do newbies?

Same goes for "pgfoundry".  It might be obvious to the people already
using PostgreSQL, but those aren't the people that need help finding
something at the web site.  What does a foundry have to do with computer
projects?

We're not associated with an iron-works or Bethlehem Steel, we're a
database project trying to attract and keep visitors.  If users can't
find what they want at our site, they'll find it somewhere else or move
on to another product that helps them do what they want.

Instead of "gborg projects", why not just call it what it is, "supported
projects"?

Darren

Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:14:02 -0400
"Darren King" <DarrenK@Routescape.com>
Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions