Re: What is a webring?

James S. Huggins (Ringlink) wrote:

I believe that some minimum number is relevant
...


James replied to a question from me in the Ringlink developers forum:

"Shouldn't a minimum number of member sites be a requirement to be
registered in the Ringlink Webring Directory?"

Whether it was a mistake to post here or not, I think it's a good idea to move the discussion to Ringlink-open.

To give more context, this is a dialogue between Pete and me:

MayDayRevolution@xxxxxxx wrote:

Well, the Ringlink program (also the Directory) gives no mention of
a minimum number of member sites:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ringlink Webring Directory <http://ringdir.ringlink.org/>


True. And in my question lies, of course: Shouldn't it be mentioned?

As I see it, a webring is not going to get sites if it is not
promoted.


Obviously true. At the same time, one site "rings" make the directory
less useful.

Isn't it reasonable to expect that a ringmaster promotes their ring in
other ways besides registering it in the directory? Would a three
sites, for instance, requirement be that tough?

So, a requirement for a minimum number of sites is something that
might apply to a WebRing.com with a wazillion rings, but not a
Ringlink system??


Principally there is no difference IMO. On the contrary, we make a
point of the fact that the Ringlink Webring Directory is maintained by
humans, implying that it leads to a better quality.

Anyway, shouldn't it be the system manager and not the directoy
admin who should decide such things?


How could a system manager decide about the rules for the independent
Ringlink Webring Directory, that is used by ringmasters on many systems?

/ Gunnar