Quote:
Originally posted by Smilin' Joe Fission
But there are people like me who have both. How would your proposal handle this? |
I'm not. Unless you block a search, you are seen by the searching client as neutral.
Quote:
| Unless you download that sort of stuff directly, no files like that ever reach your PC. About the only thing that travels to your PC are the searches, which your computer routes to other nodes even if you don't have the files that meet the search criteria. |
These are what I'm proposing to drop. Drop the searches, and don't display searches which are dropped in the usual 'search monitor'. Optionally have a screen which will optionally display 'Dropped Searches'.
Quote:
| It would be seriously destructive to the Gnutella network for some clients (or users of those clients) to arbitrarily decide that they don't want to forward queries just because they contain the word "porn" or something. |
No it wouldn't - as I described, it would simply move the clients which want to search for those terms away from the ones which don't.
For HIGHLY UNPOPULAR terms such as lolita preteen xxx I expect it would have a significant impact on the time taken for searches to come back and for the client to find other clients who do not block those terms, assuming everyone installs a client which supports this system and configures the blocking.
But because of the pluralistic nature of the population of gnutella users, for most search terms it wouldn't be any kind of problem.
Quote:
| A user blocking another user's queries isn't proving anything. How are you giving others the right to publish what they want if you insist on blocking queries to it? |
They are welcome to serve the files from their PC, and pass the information that the files are served to anyone who cares.
Quote:
| How are you upholding the "rights" of others to search for something by blocking it just because YOU disapprove of it? |
They can search. As I describe above, if most people think their search is OK, most people will propogate it. Do you have any idea how many gnutella clients there are? It's in the tens to hundreds of millions. If one client blocks something, that still leaves a lot of clients which will pass on the request. I have slowed their search by some milliseconds.
Quote:
| Remember, all you know about is that they're searching... the transfers happen without your knowledge anyway, so why should you care what they're searching for? |
I am sick of the stuff.
Quote:
| Also remember, you nor your PC are taking any part in the actual propogation of that sort of stuff on the network. |
Yes, my PC is taking part by propogating the searches and the results. Yuk. I'm not talking about a mild aversion to naked women, although I think it is legitimate to question the amount of bandwidth used on porn in general.
Also, as I said, people would like to move clients closer together in some cases for some searches. Uses proposed have included language specific searches.
Once the grep searching ability is facilitated in gnutella searches, you will be able to block searches which
do not contain a particular term.
Quote:
| I think your idea would be better suited to a proprietary network where there are only 1 or 2 clients that exist to access it. Unless you can convince ALL other Gnutella client developers that your idea just rocks and to implement it (which I doubt would happen... you haven't yet convinced me it's worth implementing into my client), |
You have a major problem understanding statistics and democracy and how the two interact.
If noone else thinks this is a good idea, not many clients will support it - maybe none if I don't get my finger out.
On the other hand, if it is a good idea, we will figure out how to do it and do it and the idea will spread - users will demand it or move clients.
Your opinion as an individual that 'the idea just plain sux' is only the idea of one person, and you speak for no one except yourself. Thanks for your opinion. Anyone else with the same opinion, consider yourselves spoken for already by Smilin' Joe.
Quote:
| roducing a client with features like that would be useless because there would be a dozen other clients out there that would be ignoring your efforts. |
I think the disconnect only needs to be done on a client who is directly connected as a 'host' and that <A HREF="http://rfc-gnutella.sourceforge.net/Proposals/BYE/_status.txt">when</A> the <A HREF="http://rfc-gnutella.sourceforge.net/Proposals/BYE/Bye.txt">BYE protocol extension</A> is implemented that this can be used.
I believe the appropriate protocol response would be 'relay improper queries (402)'.
So, many clients will understand what is being said to them (at least enough to display an error message to the user). BYE can even be retrofitted to 0.4 clients.
If a client does not understand, that's fine, it just won't necessarily have the same degree of effect in moving clients closer/further away based on searches. But they will be disconnected by my client every time they try an unwanted search .. which is not a great penalty unless it is being done by many many clients.
Nos
<A HREF="http://www.sdf.se/~simon/marvin/songs/save_the_children.html">Who really cares?
Who's willing to try?</A>