| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Jeremy Scott writes:
> [...]
> Would Todd want it like that?
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 established in the first place.
> CLSOTW was here before Lugnet. It was his project, and he allowed anyone
> to participate.
(By "participate" I assume you mean "cast a vote.") Yes, that's true, but
only because there wasn't an infrastructure in place at the time (1996) for
doing it in a clean way. The membership infrastructure provides a clean
implementation for one person, one vote -- just like set rankings:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7128
If I'd had the membership infrastructure available from the outset, I would've
definitely done it that way from the start.
> [...]
> I disagree, this clause allows for the novelty period to wear off and then
> only the truely best sites will go to a vote. [...]
Well, part of the CLSotW role is to introduce people to cool new content that
they might otherwise miss. I think hardcore LEGO fans keep tabs on areas like
.announce.moc, BrickShelf's recent.cgi area, and so on, but not every fan is
hardcore...there are a lot of casual fans (or hardcore fans who just simply
don't go online all that often) who stop by infrequently. I think novelty and
excitement are part of the CLSotW experience (oooooh yeah!) and personally I'd
hate to see options limited this way.
> > > -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.
Nope, this shouldn't be a requirement; the purpose of CLSotW is not to promote
LUGNET (although that's certainly a fine byproduct). The purpose is to draw
attention to exciting (relatively) new content and to comprise an archive of
interesting and exciting links.
> > > -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.
Yeah, I agree. BrickBay (BrickLink) and a few other commercial sites have
been featured, and I don't think this violates the spirit of CLSotW's mission
any more than a raytracing or robotics site would. That said, the main focus
of CLSotW has always been sites built around traditional building projects --
models/MOCs and building techniques and all that.
Also please bear this in mind: Just because a site doesn't xyz today
doesn't mean that it won't xyz tomorrow. Are you going to freak out if a
site that doesn't sell stuff today starts selling stuff next week?
> Another idea comes to mind...
>
> Lugnet Click of the Week
I like that name. I don't generally like the idea of changing CLSotW's name
since it has such a long rich history going back to 1996, but I think your
suggestion is very interesting.
> 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 have mixed feelings here, but I tend to agree. And the name "LUGNET Click
of the Week" certainly applies better in this case than "Cool LEGO Site of
the Week."
> ps: Todd, can we please hear your thoughts as to the member, non-member
> voting rights?
My thoughts are that limiting the voting to LUGNET members only is the
cleaneast way to go. This was always what I intended to do with CLSotW
since 1998 but I never got around to upgrading the old voting system. Even
with the IP address duplication filters, there were still occasionally obvious
instances of ballot stuffing.
Anyway, it doesn't bother me at all of non-members can't vote. You wanna
vote, get a membership. LUGNET could use your money.
Here are more of my thoughts (still all applicable):
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=2052
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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 (...) (23 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
