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 9 - 13 of 13
< Prev 8   All Threads |   All Posts   ]

dropping like flies - 11/11/2006
"A similar number of managers have put the rings they managed up for adoption. We're in the process of cleaning up all these freshly "freed" rings in order to improve the quality of the content in each for those members that remain in them (or continue to join)"

Again, not a bad thing - if it's done right. If it were me I'd get rid of every site in a ring that's duplicated somewhere else. Then, if the ring had just a few members left in it, I'd direct those few remaining members to the rings in their category with the highest traffic and uniqueness. Then get rid of the original ring.

I'd view fewer, but healther rings as good for managers/owners, ring members, AND Webring itself. After all, what's good for everyone? One ring with high traffic that offers value to it's members and Webring surfers, enticing those surfers to come back? Or 6 rings that have very little traffic, few or no hits for members, and surfers that never come back? One brings members traffic and Webring revenue thru advertising - the other brings little/no hits for members and no advertising revenue for Webring because nobody is surfing a useless ring.
Just MHO.




Replied - 11/11/2006
manage_webrings,

Like you, I also see cleaning the system of the clutter and the ring hoarders (who control hundreds of rings but do very little to manage them properly), and of the sites which have hundreds or thousands of memberships and appear in nearly every single ring of the directory.

As someone who owned (that's owned, because I already gave a number up) 20 or so rings, with another 50 or 60 or so memberships (amongst around 10 different websites, mind you) and always actively managed rings, actively rejected sites, and always customised navigation code, what I object to is being thrown into the same category as the above paragraph.

Target those members who are the real problems, not the good managers.




Replied - 11/11/2006
"Like you, I also see cleaning the system of the clutter and the ring hoarders (who control hundreds of rings but do very little to manage them properly), and of the sites which have hundreds or thousands of memberships and appear in nearly every single ring of the directory."

That paragraph should have ended with "...as a good thing." Whoops!




Replied - 11/11/2006
Netrunner writes that "system" is evil and wants to control all and decide who can be in what ring.

Nothing could be less true. We did not abandon all those rings. We're simply cleaning them up. What does this mean? It means looking at each and removing the off topic sites.

We've found thousands of off topic sites. A dog ring with a member site selling knives. Sports rings with members trying to get you to visit their "I manage all these rings" sites. How useless is that in ANY ring? Another user joined nearly 2000 rings where every conceivable faction apparently loves his book. And he was supportive too! Thought it was fair to offer to have his site featured for .05 cents a MONTH. And it's only partly the members' fault. Too many managers don't pay any attention to the content of the site being submitted (or they submit their own when the content isn't there).

The most frequent complaint we get from visitors is that rings are filled with garbage sites. That has to change. And it is changing.




Replied - 11/12/2006
"Like you, I also see cleaning the system of the clutter and the ring hoarders (who control hundreds of rings but do very little to manage them properly)..."

What constitutes a "ring hoarder" I wonder? Who here is smart enough to decide what number of rings are "too many"? What if a retired person runs 100 rings and has the time and interest to do so? Do you feel competent to judge that this is too many rings? Yes, there are "bad" multi ring managers...and there are bad single ring managers. For many managers, one ring is too many. For some, a hundred becomes a hobby, a committment, and perhaps brings a sense of community involvement. Maybe WebRing has become an important part of their life to make them want to really get involved. How DARE anyone take the pompous, self righteous, point of view to say that THEY know what the correct number of rings someone else should manage. You want to apply a standard, I support it 100%..as long as that standard is based on things that matter. What are the navigation ratings of the rings, how quickly do pending sites get reviewed, are emails responded to in a timely manner, etc... Define what makes a good ring manager based on objective criteria and apply it equally to all managers. There is wonderful diversity in WebRing, and that includes the diversity of the people that manage rings here. Does anyone really think they can define the one single "ideal" kind of ring manager? Does it make sense to take away actively well run rings from someone, because the maximum correct number has been set at 30 (unless you want to pay $1.00 per ring above that)? This is madness.

njjimf



< Prev 8   All Threads |   All Posts   ]





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