 | | Re: CLSOTW question — Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) It's not a general rule, but it often works out that way due to repeated nominations or a lack of new ones some weeks. It would be nice if there were a more formalized way of tracking/handling nominations/submissions. Any ideas? --Todd (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW question —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | (...) Personally, I think that nominees should stay on the list until they win, or some fixed interval expires, whichever comes first. --Bill. (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW question —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | (...) Some of my original thoughts on CLSOTW, contained here: (URL) still may work. I know I ranted a whole lot then, but maybe this time it will be different. ---...--- How a site becomes CLSOTW: (Tuesday, Week 1) 1. Anyone who wants can nominate a (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: CLSOTW question —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | | | (...) Actually, I thought I saw the numerical results for last week's poll before this week's poll went up. Maybe this was a glitch in the system, or maybe I was hallucinating. I like the idea of a site staying up for a set number of weeks. (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: CLSOTW question —Frank Filz
|
| | | | I'm pretty ambivalent about CLSOTWs (other than looking at them), I do have some comments: (...) This seems reasonable. Continued activity on a great site does deserve repeated recognition. (...) On the above two I do have a problem. What if two (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
