[okfn-help] QA for OKFN websites ?

[Rufus Pollock]

@Stefano too ...

On 18 June 2010 10:42, Ben O'Steen <bosteen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's not a hard process to check links within a known set of sites - is
> there a place to build a list of OKFN sites, or those that someone
> within the OKFN has resposibility, or write-access to?
>
> eg: http://linkchecker.sourceforge.net/

<http://knowledgeforge.net/okfn/sysadmin/file/d788d42e3f0f/bin/check_okfn_websites.py>

This is a little out of date but pretty good (it also includes the
code to actually go check the website and see if it is up).

> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 23:31 +0200, Stefano Costa wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> today I realized that there are so many websites managed by the OKF that
>> it is nearly impossible to keep track of all of them, or at least there
>> is no single person who knows about every single website.
>>
>> I may be wrong, but what worries me is particularly that some sites
>> might be broken, or have dead links, or expired domains like for
>> wsfii.org ... and other possible bugs. This is particularly true for

wsfii.org wasn't a site we ran or maintained/supported -- it had been
transferred out of our responsibility ...

>> those websites that get little or no updates ("static" content, old
>> initiatives, dead experiments, etc).

For general site up-ness we do have a system already in place:

<http://knowledgeforge.net/okfn/tasks/wiki/MonitoringService>

Plus the script I mentioned above. In terms of dead/broken links
that's a very different story.

>> I don't know how it could be implemented, but it would be nice to have a
>> sort of semi-automated way to check that all sites are up and running,
>> no broken pages/services, etc. A comprehensive list of all websites
>> might be a start, maybe there is already such a list, I don't know.

You probably want to distinguish between sites being up (which we
already check) and things like broken links (and even broken services
which is a bit harder -- though not that difficult ...)

>> Other than wsfii.org cited above, earlier today I came across
>> http://bibliographica.org/get-involved (now already fixed!).
>>
>> Otherwise, one may think to add the getsatisfaction "feedback" to all
>> sites.
>>
>> If this idea sounds useless, feel free to ignore it! :-)

Very useful and we could definitely tighten up on the monitoring side
of things so bugging/suggesting/coding all welcome ...

Rufus