pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 18 13:51:10 UTC 2021
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 13:45, Robin Burek <robin.burek at gmx.de> wrote:
Overall, I would assume that there are no automatic edits here, but rather
> a good quality management tool is used. I would - even if it is perhaps
> wrong from a linguistic point of view - primarily (if it is the only list
> on the Internet) to display such pages under "website" - here you just have
> to think about the data consumer.
Long, long ago you could have made the argument that everything should be
website=*. But now we can tag wikipedia webpages. Facebook user/group
pages. And images (I've seen a couple of website that consist entirely of
an image with text on it). So the data consumer already has several
things to check for rather than assuming that if it's accessible to a web
browser then we've tagged it as website=*. Or should we move all
of those under website=*?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging