At 17:01 2004-09-30 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
Patrick,
You make some good points!
But I still think that my idea is valid because I suspect that it may help us to find one or two more egregious FPs (like smithbarney.com). Would that not make this idea very worthwhile?
I don't think that more extensive whitelistings is the answer to current FP problems. Less "didn't even check nanas/sbl/the actual site" listings is a much better way to handle that problem, at least for WS. We can not solve the FP problem by using even more whitelistings. It will just create a new problem of FWLs - False White Listings.
Also, do you know of a better traffic ranking list?
Yes I do, but as the level of traffic doesn't correspond to the level of non-spamminess, I really don't think it's relevant in this context.
Patrik