Subject:
|
Re: Rebirth of Cool LEGO Site of the Week
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Jul 2002 06:47:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2676 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Bryan Beckwith writes:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Jeremy Scott writes:
<snipped>
> > First off, why should you limit this to members only?
>
> If LUGNET is giving out an award to web sites, it only seems right that
> LUGNET members should be behind it.
But if you are still a participating member of the community, without paid
membership, why are you not a Lugnet member? I, and many along with me,
have the free, watered down lugnet. Does this fact make me not a part of
this community? This should be a COMMUNITY thing. Not a perk to a $10
membership.
> > Many people, like me,
> > can't drop the money for a membership, or aren't allowed by their parents
> > (both are me).
>
> I really don't think that $10 is out of anyone's price range. As for
> permission from your parents, I don't see why they wouldn't allow you to
> become a member. The only reason I could think of is privacy related, and
> your membership wouldn't reveal anything more than what is already revealed
> in your postings.
Try to convince my parents...
> > Why should you stop us, the wanna-be members who one day
> > will become members, from participating in this? Lugnet only has
> > approximately. 1500 members, but many, many more non-members visit while
> > lurking or posting. I don't know what the true stats are, but lots of people
> > must come here from links, searches and word of mouth. I could foresee more
> > that 3000 people per day, and about 350 of those are daily visitors, 2000
> > weekly. Why do you exclude people from what is already becoming a central
> > activity in the online Lego fan world? Would Todd want it like that? CLSOTW
> > was here before Lugnet, so why should only Lugnet Members control it now?
> > <venting done, ranting off>
>
> I don't see it as about stopping the "wanna-be members" from participating.
> In my opinion, anyone could nominate a site, but only members should be able
> to vote. (I kind of see it like citizenship. If someone wants to
> participate in, say, the US political system, they need to be a citizen. Of
> course, non-citizens can still make campaign contributions [nominating a
> site]) Maybe it's not the best analogy, but I think it fits.
How can it not? The voting is the best part. If the members of this site
had the only voting rights, then any Bionicle site (an example, really)
would NEVER get in.
Once again:
Would Todd want it like that? CLSOTW was here before Lugnet. It was his
project, and he allowed anyone to participate. Why should only Lugnet
Members control it from here on?
> > Here is how I suggest to make both parties happy:
>
> .. snipped out lengthy nomination process ..
>
> I really think that a simple nomination form would be better than a
> discussion group.
My nomination process was designed to only nominate sites that more than one
person wanted nominated, instead of a form that would nominate every site
there was, good or bad. A form nomination would require an admin staff that
will have enourmous lists of nominations to sort through. Therefore, they
get to control what makes it in, allowing for biased descions.
>
> > Site requirements:
> >
> > -Must be of Lego Orientation
>
> Of course.
>
> > -The site or folder is at least three months old
>
> I don't think that there needs to be an age requirement. Plenty of new
> sites would be worthy of CLSotW, regardless of whether they were 1 week or 6
> months old.
I disagree, this clause allows for the novelty period to wear off and then
only the truely best sites will go to a vote. My favorite sites are updated
monthly, therefore I go back many times to see new stuff. It is my favorite
for this reason, going back and seeing more new stuff. If a site never gets
updated, does it deserve the CLSOTW?
For example: I could make a knock out site that everyone loves, everyone
votes for it, and then I never update it again. People go back once or
twice, to see nothing new, and forget it ever existed. This is not worthy
of a CLSOTW, but because it was cool when it was new, it won.
> > -Site or folder hasn't been awarded the CLSOTW this past year
>
> Agreed.
>
> > -Site or folder hasn't been nominated in the past month
>
> I have mixed feelings on this. I think limiting the frequency of
> renominating sites makes sense, but maybe it should be every other week.
The timing can be whatever, but a shorter period allows for stagnation of
the voting.
>
> > -If it has won or been nominated before, it must have recent updates since then.
>
> Agreed.
Reduces Stagnation, again.
> > -It must have a Lugnet link or Logo on the site*
>
> I don't see why this should be the case. If the purpose of the award is to
> promote LUGNET, the award graphic on the nominated site would be sufficient.
True, I see your point!
> > -Can Handle Massive Bandwidth**
>
> There is really no way for us to judge the amount of bandwidth a nominated
> site could handle. Rather than make limitations in this regard, a simple
> page off of the nomination page could inform a site owner that heavy traffic
> may result and suggestions could be provided for dealing with the heavy traffic.
The reason I suggested this is because sites hosted by free servers, like
Geocities, can run out of bandwith in a couple of visits if the site is big.
This screws up the whole week for us all.
We need to either educate or eliminate...
Educate: Ozbricks is free for all and offers unlimited bandwith or post the
pics on brickshelf. While the site owner is conforming to the requirements,
Admin can hold his nomination for a week or two.
Eliminate: Requirements need to be set for the better of the community, even
if it excludes someone. This annoying problem needs to be addressed or the
site shouldn't be allowed, because when bandwith runs out, we all are
without CLSOTW for a week, and we lose the point of the reconition.
> > -Doesn't Sell Stuff, i.e.: GOB(tm) Web Site.***
>
> I really don't see any reason behind this. If a site is "cool" it's "cool."
> The primary function of the official LEGO site is to promote and sell it's
> products; that doesn't mean it doesn't provide lots of great information,
> ideas, etc. to LEGO fans.
But why should Lugnet be a source for someone else's income?
> .. another big snip ..
>
> > Other thoughts...
> >
> > Ballot Stuffing:
> > It is an unstoppable evil. Make a limit, 1 vote per unique IP, and hope for
> > people to be honest and not vote every time they change their IP.
>
> Rather than hoping for honesty, limiting voting to members eliminates this
> problem.
The old CLSOTW more than likely had ballot stuffing, but did it hurt the
whole experience? NO! Also, if you use a poll like Tim Saupe does on
FBTB.net, you can greatly reduce this.
> > ----New Name for CLSOTW:
>
> I agree that a new name would be nice.
>
> > Yes please, things have changed, and CLSOTW as a name is no longer as >>fitting.
> >
> > Lego Users Weekly Community Choice Award
> > Lugnet Weekly Community Choice Award
> > Lugnet Community Site of the Week
> > Weekly Digital Brick Award
> > Digital Brick Site of the Week
> > Brick-Click Site of the Week (My Fave)
>
>
> I like something like 'LUGNET Weekly Community Choice Award'. The name of
> the award should make it clear that the site was chosen by the LUGNET
> community. Maybe something like 'LUGNET Pick of the Week'. I haven't heard
> anything yet that really seems perfect to me.
Another idea comes to mind...
Lugnet Click of the Week
> > ----Allow B-Shelf Galleries:
> > As you can guess from above, yes!
>
> The way I see it, the idea of CLSotW is to honor great LEGO related
> websites. Brickshelf Galleries may contain some awesome creations, but
> that's not the purpose of the award.
Up for debate on this issue. I think a good site is made up of the
creations it hosts. Even if the web programming totally stinks, is hard to
use and has frames, if the site has good creations, it will win. B-Shelf
galleries get rid of the bad programming and cuts to the point, darned good
creations.
> > ----Cool Lego Site Of The Year (or whatever) awards:
> > Every Month, Members may choose there favorite site from the month past
> > month on a separate page just for them. These stats saved and kept secret.
> > Every year, the Members are allowed to see their choices, and within those,
> > vote to choose their favorites for the past year in three categories,
> > CLSOTY: Best Site Design, CLSOTY: Best MOC Showcase, CLSOTY: Best
> > Story/Theme Site. Then, the public will vote on these final three to award
> > CLSOTY: Community Choice Award. (THE BEST)
>
> I think this is a neat idea, but not really necessary.
Fun, Yes. Cool, Yes. A highlighted event eagerly awaited by fans, Yes!
Necessary, no, but does it matter?
> > ----Prizes:
> > $2 off any NEW Lugnet memberships for two runner ups and $5 for winner.
> > Also, community members may add to the pot.
>
> Prizes are another neat idea, but I don't think they are necessary. The
> award _is_ the prize.
I agree, but I would love to get a membership fee reducion. Maybe then my
parents will let me join. ;^)
<remainder snipped>
~just your neighborhood lugneter,
Jeremy Scott
ps: Todd, can we please hear your thoughts as to the member, non-member
voting rights?
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Rebirth of Cool LEGO Site of the Week
|
| (...) It should be whatever we make it. If that involves voting restrictions for non-members, so be it. (...) I disagree. I'm not a bionicle fan, but have seen some bionicle related sites that I would *definitely* nominate (and vote) for such an (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Rebirth of Cool LEGO Site of the Week
|
| (...) Well, in fact, yes, I would. I think that's the best way, for technical reasons (essentially eliminates vote-stuffing), and it was always the idea to do it this way, and in fact voting was one of the many reasons that memberships were (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rebirth of Cool LEGO Site of the Week
|
| In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Jeremy Scott writes: See my comments throughout. (...) Agreed :) (...) The same goes for me, CLSotW was one of the things that brought me to LUGNET and back to LEGO. (...) If LUGNET is giving out an award to web sites, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
