Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:35:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
186 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm pretty ambivalent about CLSOTWs (other than looking at them), I do
have some comments:
Jeremy Scott wrote:
> -Site hasn't been awarded the CLSOTW this past year
>
> Reason: This rule allows for 2 things: 1 for a site to win CLSOTW again if
> the webamster deserves it through his/her dedication to the hobby and their
> site. 2: It makes sure those who do deserve the award a second time don't
> take it too often.
This seems reasonable. Continued activity on a great site does deserve
repeated recognition.
> -Site hasn't been nominated in the past month
>
> Reason: If we see the same stuff nominated each week, the whole voting
> process stagnates. We need differant things.
>
> -If it has won or been nominated before, it must have recent updates since then.
>
> Reason: The CLSOTW is a prestigious award, therefore, the webmaster should
> earn the right to wear it.
On the above two I do have a problem. What if two really awesome sites
get nominated the same week. Why should the loser have to be updated in
order to be eligible again? One thought would be to have a double poll:
- pick your favorite site
- check each site you feel deserving of remaining on the ballot for next
week (possibly automatically checking your vote)
A site will only be put on next week's poll if it is re-nominated by at
least half the voters (or some other percentage). This way, if there is
a burst of really awesome sites, they will most likely all be
recognized, but someone can't just keep re-nominating their friends
mediocre site.
> -Can Handle the Exposure (bandwith)
>
> Reason: If the site cannot take the exposure, and then goes down, we no
> longer have a CLSOTW. If the person hosts geocities and all the images are
> located on his GC account, the site will go down fast. If he hosts locally,
> pays for a good service or uses a quality free service such as ozbricks, or
> hosts images on b-shelf, the site should be fine. If he doesn't, the admin
> of CLSOTW may allow the Webmaster time to comply with the requirements. I
> understand this rule may be harsh, but I have seen the frustration with
> downed sites all to often.
While I am just as frustrated by this as the next guy, I'd hate to see
this restriction. I think if someone's site is painfully low on
bandwidth it won't win (people won't be able to see it to vote on it).
Any site has the potential to go down in flames if it receives too much
recognition. Just because someone doesn't want to, or can't afford,
robust site hosting should not be cause for denial of recognition.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: CLSOTW question
|
| (...) 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)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
