Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discussion: culling the Sites list in the wiki #695

Closed
StevenBlack opened this Issue Dec 21, 2012 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants

Here's the URL to the Sites page in the Jekyll wiki.

https://github.com/mojombo/jekyll/wiki/Sites

Should we cull sites whose source isn't at least partially available?

Sites without public Jekyll source, at least in part, is a bit of a vanity-play and somewhat of a bum-steer for users looking for technical guidance and implementation examples.

Alternately should we push the no-source links to the bottom of the list, perhaps in its own section?

My view: unless a site delivers implementation value, it has no place in this list.

Also my view: the first say 20 sites listed should be outstanding ones. That's subjective, but we should patrol the top of this list for those clearly not among the finest.

Owner

mattr- commented Dec 21, 2012

let's just nuke the page altogether.

Member

ixti commented Dec 21, 2012

I think it should list websites with sources only. I can judge for myself, I used that page when was moving to Jekyll just to get overall idea of how to do thing.

@mattr- oh god no. That page is a valuable resource. At least, it certainly is for me. I'm still exploring it.

But it's got some bum-steers -- let's call them low-value for discovery -- near the top of the list which prompts the question.

Don't want to step on any toes... but the list could use some curating.

Contributor

qrush commented Dec 21, 2012

This is fine. It's meant as both a reference and a way for Jekyll users to be proud they're using it. If I didn't have this list I wouldn't have been able to get started with Jekyll. At the very least it's good for that.

This is exactly what wikis are meant for: editing on a mass scale. It's a little spammy now, and someone had the gall to top-post over @mojombo (which I just fixed), but I don't see why it should be deleted.

If we want a "curated" list, the upcoming site can show some hand-picked ones off that the committers or the community can vote on.

@qrush qrush closed this Dec 21, 2012

Contributor

qrush commented Dec 21, 2012

At the very least we should sort the list so existing Jekyll sites with the source available are at the top.

ffcode commented Dec 21, 2012

please don't delete, sort them with /wo source but let's keep it, i am keeping a local copy, don't know who is going to supersede whom

Done. No deletions. Grep'd for "source" and, keeping order intact, moved that set above those without source. Added a header for each set.

@jekyllbot jekyllbot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 27, 2017

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.