I was motivated in creating "Play Links Webring" by another Web site that
claimed to be a ring and that was only a page with a list of links. I didn't
pay much attention to that when I first saw it and, over the years, it never
came to my mind that a real webring was something else.
I realized my confusion when I applied to have my own Web page listed with
them. In fact, according to their rules, every member had to place the
"webring" banner in his web site's front page. When I tried to understand
the purpose of that was when I've found the World of Webrings page and
started reading.
I understood that, instead of creating a virtual network, a community of
pages related to a common subject; their webring was nothing else that an
ordinary web site with a bunch of links.
I believe the guy who started that pseudo webring did it honestly and had no
intention to fool its members. His free host won't allow a ring system so he
has to compose with what he has. I even offered him to be the ringmaster of
my newly created "Play Links Webring" but he did not answer.
My point is: We can't forbid someone to describe his or her Web site as
Webring. There's no way to stop someone to download and install this
wonderfull program that is Ringlink, even when there's no other site but
his/her own attached to it. What it could be done, is to have a kind of
Webring validator system (Something like the W3C HTML validator) that would
give a certification (small linked banner) as an authentic web ring.
This won't stop one-page-webrings, but it would give the others a
credibility the first ones won't have.
Manny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunnar Hjalmarsson" <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [RLopen] What is a webring?
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