SandridgeFarm@xxxxxxx wrote:
James S. Huggins (Ringlink) wrote:
for me, that one-member "webrings" should not be listed in the
directory.
Well, when you create a Ringlink webring, the next page that comes
up suggests that you list your ring in the directory, and this is
even before the ring has any sites.
That's true, Pete. It's my fault, and personally I have started to
believe that the wording you refer to should be reconsidered.
All webrings start off with just 1 website, so instead of a limit
on the number of sites, there should be a limit on how long that
ring can be listed if it has only 1 website. Say 3 months?
That's an alternative approach, conceptually addressing the same
issue. The problem with that approach is that it would be impractical,
since the script we are using for the Ringlink Webring Directory isn't
feeded with that info.
As to WebRing.com and RingSurf.com, these are the webring systems
of the wazzillion 1 member webrings!!
As we know unlike the system managers for these systems, Ringlink
System managers take a far greater interest in what rings are
allowed to join, and would never tolerate spam webrings, which
unfortunatly have been giving the ring concept a very bad
reputation! :-(
I'm convinced that zero- or one-member webrings is a problem on some
Ringlink systems as well. But why not take advantage of the fact that
the Ringlink Webring Directory is an independent, manually managed
resource, and apply a minimum number of member sites criterium when
deciding which rings that may be listed?
/ Gunnar