Member Sites  ::  JOIN  ::  Forum  ::  Info  ::  Next Ring  
WebRing Managers Community - Untitled document One of the original and largest Ring Manager rings, promoting individual WebRings since 1998

  Forums     Login   Signup



WebRing Managers Community

Manager: wrug
WebRing Managers WebRing presents the WebRing Managers Forum, a place for WebRing Managers to discuss ideas, ethics, tactics, etc. This Forum is for WebRing discussion only and is closely moderated.
 

Sponsored Links

PLEASE READ BELOW BEFORE PARTICIPATING
A Note on Pendings
  For those processing new submissions we'd like to offer these reminders/bit
read...

Forum Posts - Start a new discussion! Posts 1 - 4 of 4
All Threads |   All Posts   ]

Still confused... - 10/13/2006
No, I'm not all that confused about what my options are in January, but I'm still confused as to why WebRing chose to alienate the ringmanagers that have been a part of the system from the beginning.

It would have made more sense to "grandfather in" the accounts established preceeding the fee based system and waive the "ring(s) in excess" charge for existing rings and charged against any new rings created in the future. Even after 2007.

But to just now come to the conclusion that a ringmanager shouldn't have more than 5 - 10 rings after he / she has spent so much time and become attached to their rings is bad business.

It's sad to see so many of the regulars leaving this system, yet I understand why. It's sad to see so many rings thrown into an adoptable state and the ringmanagers that would be the most capable to revive the ring are denied the opportunity because of the number of rings they are managing.

I have no problems with a fee based system where you pay for the features, but why alienate those who have brought so many members to WebRing.com?




Replied - 10/13/2006
"I have no problems with a fee based system where you pay for the features, but why alienate those who have brought so many members to WebRing.com?"

If they really brought “so many members” to the webring, why didn’t they ever earn any credits that could now be put towards their premium levels? And if they have done so in the past, where is the harm in continuing to do so, except with the affiliate options, in which it could pay for their fees as a premium member?




Replied - 10/16/2006
altringmaster writes "...why WebRing chose to alienate the ringmanagers that have been a part of the system from the beginning."

We didn't CHOOSE to alienate anyone. Those who feel alienated have chosen to feel that way. We have said from the start that we are happy to work with members. We WANT to work with members, which is why we have set aside all of 2007 to do so.

continuing...
"It would have made more sense to 'grandfather in' the accounts established preceeding the fee based system and waive the "ring(s) in excess" charge for existing rings and charged against any new rings created in the future. Even after 2007."

Perhaps so. We never said we would not. In some cases we may, in others it may not make sense. Once again, the reason for setting aside 2007 to work this out.

Continuing...
"But to just now come to the conclusion that a ringmanager shouldn't have more than 5 - 10 rings after he / she has spent so much time and become attached to their rings is bad business."

That is your opinion, and just that. This was not made up one night in a smoke filled room. Here are soem statistics that might help:

95% of our members fall within the 2 rings 5 sites
4.5% fall within the level 1 limits
.5 fall within the level 2 limits
a small number are outside that.

We don't propose to limit anyone to 5 to 10 rings. Nothing has even been said to the affect. With respect to ring memberships... consider that if you were to sign up with an ad service to promote your site you could expect to pay a minimum of 10 cents PER CLICK to get traffic. So, if a membership gets you just 1 click PER YEAR it is cheap. If not, why have it?




Replied - 10/19/2006
"It would have made more sense to 'grandfather in' the accounts established preceeding the fee based system and waive the "ring(s) in excess" charge for existing rings and charged against any new rings created in the future. Even after 2007."

Perhaps so. We never said we would not. In some cases we may, in others it may not make sense. Once again, the reason for setting aside 2007 to work this out.

Can you please elaborate on this? When do you think you will know whether I will be able to keep more than 2 historical rings with free membership and if so how many and would there be any conditions associated with this?



All Threads |   All Posts   ]





Contact Us | Copyright © 2001-2016 WebRing®, Inc. Terms of Service - Help - Privacy Policy