Member Sites  ::  JOIN  ::  Forum  ::  Info  ::  Next Ring  
The Stage - Welcome to the place where you can post for the world to share.    

  Forums     Login   Signup

The Stage

Manager: webring
This is an open discussion forum for users to discuss WebRing features, wishes, thoughts, etc. QUESTIONS about and PROBLEMS with the System should be posted in detail using the support forums in Help. Negative, derogatory or personal comments will be deleted. Sadly, due to spamming and anonymous trashing of other users we have had to restrict posting to signed in members.

Sponsored Links

A few permanent posts to illustrate the feature
Re (3403): Nav bar NEXT goes to hub page.
  Thanks. Knocking the cookie security down from medium to low in the interne

Re (3401): Nav bar NEXT goes to hub page.
  Two possible reasons: 1. you're site is not asctive in the ring currently

can't upload logos?
  Is there a problem with logo uploading? When is the best time to upload?

Forum Posts - Start a new discussion! Posts 1 - 6 of 6
All Threads |   All Posts   ]

Dropping rings may be a possitive! - 09/30/2006
I can see the questions on why some people donít want to drop webrings in order to get under a limit, but Iím looking it at a different view. Why does it matter to have 4-5 webrings that might cover topics and have smaller memberships, rather than just have one larger webring? I dropped 3 repeats of my anti-racist webrings and asked members to join the one anti-racist webring I was keeping. Hopefully, they will do so. In my opinion this webring will be stronger as ďoneĒ than as ďfour mini onesĒ.

I think it will unclutter the webring directories and force people to select sites that are more appropriate to their website, rather than just randomly picking and submitting sites to EVERY webring, even when they never put on the navigation bar to their website.

So, on one hand, I think it does suck that people with free memberships will only have 5 free ring membership slotsÖ and it will make ring managers work that much harder to have their ring stand out in comparison to all others. Just so people will want their site in that ring. So who knows, it may be incentive for ring managers to try and become the best out there in order to get the most free ring users. Ya never know. .. Then again, with less duplicate rings it wont matter there are only 5 or so memberships open to them because they are picking places their sites actually belong to!.

There has to be some positive sides to this, even if we donít see it off hand at first.

Replied - 09/30/2006
Just a quick question here, and I don't mean to be flippant. By any chance, do you work for WebRing? Your statements almost sound like they would come from them. I manage 8 rings in the WebRing system, 4 are absolutely unique - nothing like them, nothing covering their subjects anywhere in the system. I've got to give up / delete 2 of the unique ones AND the 4 others just to stay with this system.

I also own 11 separate large websites which subscribed to over 120 different rings. That total is down to 83 right now and I'm still dropping them as fast as I can. With 11 websites, would you care to tell me how I can work that with just 5 ring memberships allowed? Or, like Emma, do you consider this just tough s***!


Replied - 09/30/2006
Nope, I donít work for webring. Iím also in a similar boat to you, as run 12 domains / websites and have over 150 memberships in my rings and others. I also cut my 48 webrings down to 35, by actually looking at each ringís stats. How many sites in these rings are unique? How many times have people actually been to this ring in the last month? Etc.

I donít think 50 is enough for me, but really, isnít the point of joining these webrings to get traffic to our sites? Why does it matter if we are in 150 webrings where only a fraction of that is actually producing good traffic? What if we combined rings into better themes where more people are using them, rather than sporadic use on smaller tings?


Replied - 09/30/2006
One rule of business is advertising - just like we do here when we join a webring. We advertise our websites AND we advertise WebRing. One of the "sayings" in advertising is that for every 100 ads you put out 10 people will actually look at them. For every 100 people who look at them 10 might buy something. That means that to make 10 sales you need 1,000 ads to be out there. There's no way that I can make 10 sales within this system with just 2 rings and 5 ring memberships - the exposure simply isn't there.
brbrI'm now down to 13 ring memberships from 83 last night, not counting those memberships in rings that have already been deleted and I DON'T HAVE THE OPTION ANYMORE TO LEAVE THAT RING. The 13 that I intentionally kept so far are all linked to the 2 unique rings THAT I MANAGE AND WANT TO KEEP - ring home pages, my site home pages, etc.
brbrMy websites are MINE, my ring memberships USED TO BE MINE but now they're under the tacit control of a corporation who "allows" me, for now, to keep them active. I always thought that something that was mine would be mine for as long as I wanted to keep it.
brbrBut, I guess it's the same here as it is throughout the US right now. I refer to Eminent Domain. I grew up in a country where you owned your land and nobody could take it unless it was for the good of the vast majority of the public, and with good reason at that. Now any company that wishes can go to my town govt and give them money to make them take my land away from me and give it to that company, to increase tax revenue to the govt AND profits for the company. It's the same here. They have pre-emptively taken my property - and your property - for their own enrichment.
brbrI haven't totally decided what I'm going to do. I would like to keep a certain 2 of my rings. I'd like to keep all of them, but that's not going to happen - they won't let me. What I *HAVE* done is to initiate new rings in the RingSurf system for 5 of my rings, and my WR members *ARE* transferring their sites over to the new rings. I may just continue that practice and then tell WR where they can go as I walk out the door. As long as RingSurf and the other ring hosts continue to maintain their "pro-member" stances I really don't need WebRing. WebRing isn't the ONLY host out there.

Replied - 09/30/2006
Heyas, I deleted a few of my webrings and later came across on these forums complaints of other people who had webrings deleted on them and they couldnít remove their sites from it, thus taking one of the valuable 5 membership positions.

It also happened to me, that in one of the rings I deleted, it didnít automatically delete my own site from a membership of it.. Thus, it counted in my total. In any case, I was able to remove myself from my deleted webring without any issues.

I posted the 9 steps that I did to remove myself on my forums: (just in case any users in my rings came across this issue, they should know to go there for any questions about rings I manage).

I donít see why it wonít help you also.

Replied - 09/30/2006
Tried that, all I get is an error message. Hopefully this will get sorted out. Right now I am going around to my websites and removing WebRing code, and editing my advice page that advises joining WebRings. I've had enough. MonaLS

All Threads |   All Posts   ]

Contact Us | Copyright © 2001-2016 WebRing®, Inc. Terms of Service - Help - Privacy Policy