search-engines: add Mojeek to worth mentioning #1003

2019-06-21T12:11:56Z

Mikaela commented

2019-06-21 12:11:56 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Resolves: #982

privacytoolsIO (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-06-21 12:11:56 +00:00

blacklight447 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-06-21 12:11:56 +00:00

netlify[bot] commented

2019-06-21 12:12:34 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!

Built with commit a7a6688aed

https://deploy-preview-1003--privacytools-io.netlify.com

Deploy preview for *privacytools-io* ready! Built with commit a7a6688aedae59caadba9cd221866d26b8f9654e https://deploy-preview-1003--privacytools-io.netlify.com

ghbjklhv (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-06-21 22:04:29 +00:00

ghbjklhv (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

The software criteria states:

Open Source / free software is preferred but not required.
There can be exceptions if no software is available that meet the criteria.

Mojeek is proprietary, not even open source. Let alone Free Software. 1

The only possible exception is stating that their are no viable alternatives.
Due to alternatives like SearX and Jive Search, I would not state this does not apply.

The software criteria states: > Open Source / free software is preferred but not required. > There can be exceptions if no software is available that meet the criteria. Mojeek is proprietary, not even open source. Let alone Free Software. [1](https://github.com/Mojeek) The only possible exception is stating that their are no viable alternatives. Due to alternatives like SearX and Jive Search, I would not state this does not apply. _______________

jonah approved these changes

2019-06-22 00:34:03 +00:00

jonah commented

2019-06-22 00:42:21 +00:00

The only ~~possible~~ listed exception is stating that their are no viable alternatives.

Seems like a fair arguement for a worth mentioning inclusion: https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/982#issuecomment-500601057

> The only ~~possible~~ **listed** exception is stating that their are no viable alternatives. Seems like a fair arguement for a worth mentioning inclusion: https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/982#issuecomment-500601057

erciccione (Migrated from github.com) requested changes

2019-06-23 10:33:22 +00:00

erciccione (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

NACK (For what it worth)

Closed source service located in a very unfriendly country from a privacy point of view.
Also, seems like the results of a research are of poor quality. I really don't see any reason to list it. See comment in #982

NACK (For what it worth) Closed source service located in a very unfriendly country from a privacy point of view. Also, seems like the results of a research are of poor quality. I really don't see any reason to list it. See [comment in #982](https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/982#issuecomment-504739128)

Mikaela commented

2019-07-04 08:56:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@privacytoolsIO/editorial What do you think about the two NACKs?

Mikaela commented

2019-07-08 16:59:02 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I think I am going to wait for @privacytoolsIO/editorial here.

erciccione commented

2019-07-09 13:14:14 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

So, this got merged beside the 2 nacks with no explanation/further discussion? One member jumps in and merge a PR without addressing the concerns or give any sort of explanation?

I hope this is not the normal workflow of privacytools...

So, this got merged beside the 2 nacks with no explanation/further discussion? One member jumps in and merge a PR without addressing the concerns or give any sort of explanation? I hope this is not the normal workflow of privacytools...

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on pull requests.

No Reviewers

jonah

blacklight447

privacytoolsIO

ghbjklhv

erciccione

1 Participants

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1003