Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 Ray Saintonge wrote:
Maybe we did, back when we had fewer than two million articles and fewer than a million users, and were not a top-ten site making us an essential part of any vanity, spam or POV-pushing campaign.
Why should our behaviour as a top-ten site change from the behaviour that got us there? The faults that you list did not suddenly spring-up when we became a top-ten site. They have all scaled up very well, but that was always predictable.
I wonder if Judd Bagley would have gone to such lengths two years ago?
That's what scaling is all about. If someone like Bagley is a 1 in 1,000,000 shot we can probably expect that there's another on like him around. When we were smaller we were likely completely off his radar. This doesn't mean that we don't deal with these problems when they arise. We do avoid elaborate mechanisms for catching them when the cost of those mechanisms is considerably greater than the potential damage.
Ec