Subject:
|
Re: Rebirth of Cool LEGO Site of the Week
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:53:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Jeremy Scott writes:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Bryan Beckwith writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Jeremy Scott writes:
> >
> > 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.
It should be whatever we make it. If that involves voting restrictions for
non-members, so be it.
> > > 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.
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 award.
> 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?
Depends who runs the new, re-born, award site. Things change. CLSOTW (as it
is) has died. This would be a new award based on Todd's original idea.
> > > -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,
Why not?
> but because it was cool when it was new, it won.
If it was cool when it was new, I think it was worthy, no matter how often
it's updated.
> > > -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.
Agreed. If you're not one of the lucky "first few", you get those "not
available" screens, and probably never go back & see the page.
> > > -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?
It already is. Check out the .market groups.
> > > 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.
There were *a lot* less people voting then.
> Another idea comes to mind...
>
> Lugnet Click of the Week
I like that one.
> > > ----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.
I'm also swaying on this. I think if a BS gallery is good enough it will get
votes, so it should be allowed, but I can see these becoming "consolation"
winners, when there's no other sites nominated for that week.
Good sites are much more than just pictures of creations - consider a site
like http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/, which would be OK with
just pictures, but it's Jen's additional work with MLCad renders, pics of
prototypes, and great explanations that make it a really cool site.
> > > ----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?
I agree this would be cool. Maybe an idea for the future?
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rebirth of Cool LEGO Site of the Week
|
| (...) <snipped> (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
