I hate to say this, but it’s really wearing on my nerves to see
people coming to this board, post once in SOTW, and never come
back. What’s even worse, is that these people are winning.
Personally, and I know a few others who come here regularly, I
think this is ridiculous and unfair to those that do post and help out.
I propose a minimum post rule to be implemented for SOTW. I
think 20+ seems fair to me.
2 weeks ago, 3 out of 10 posted their first post in SOTW, and
haven’t been back.
Last week, the site that won was posted once and they have
never been back. In fact, do a search for his username, you’ll see
that they’ve only returned to post a lame thank you.
If you look at the submissions for this week alone, you’ll see that
as of this thread, 6 sites have been entered. Only sintax321 and
grimdeath actually post.
The total posts between the others is exactly 8. :sigh:
I can see the sense. It would be nice if people came to the forum for more than just to get an award for themselves. Or if they hung around after they’ve won, and helped people out, maybe share some tips on how they made their site…
Well it is a good idea, but the SOTW is designed to pick the best sites - not necessarily best sites from people who help out. If we proposed the 20 post limit, many will.
A. Simply decide to not submit their site
B. Spam to get exactly 20 posts and leave
It is a loss/loss situation for us. In retrospect, many of the previous SOTW winners have become great friends on the boards and post regularly such as kajinku, mariofan, etc. =)
bah. Here’s the problem with SOTW… somehow it’s implicit (but not in the rules) that you have to submit your OWN site, which leads to people like UNFLUX to ask that you should be a forum member before you’re able to submit. This is clearly not a good idea.
I think people should be encouraged to submit a site they saw and liked. If the pool of applications comes mostly from people who are submitting their own site, we don’t get a representative sample of the whole domain of awesome websites. Why? Because there are designers who haven’t heard of kirupa.com (gasp!), and because there are designers out there who are too busy working with their sites to go around submitting it to websites.
True lavaboy, the problem with that is that the sites that will be nominated will be 2Advanced, 2Advanced Clone I, 2Advanced Rip-Off (Clone II), Balthaser, etc. - the same sites that everyone has heard of and visited time and time again.
The SOTW is just a small way for designers who do have the time to scour the net and submit sites. Most designers who don’t have any time in promoting their site may have trouble gaining new clients. The SOTW is by no means an actual representation of the best sites on the Web. It is, though, a place where talented designers who may have not have a method of gaining exposure on sites such as Macromedia, etc. to get their site better known.
As long as the sites that win are of good quality - comparable sometimes to bigger sites designed by large design companies - the current method may work for a while. I agree that the rule “the designer has to submit his own work” is a hassle, but it is the least he/she can do considering all the work RennaisanceGirl and the moderators place in looking through the submissions and writing critiques on them
*Originally posted by kirupa *
**True lavaboy, the problem with that is that the sites that will be nominated will be 2Advanced, 2Advanced Clone I, 2Advanced Rip-Off (Clone II), Balthaser, etc. - the same sites that everyone has heard of and visited time and time again.
**
while that might be true, I doubt it will be of the apocalyptic proportions that you’re suggesting. Simply put, if you have a bigger sample of sites submitted, the greater the chances you will have of finding a good one that no one’s ever heard of. Not only that, but you could also keep track of websites that are too popular and make rules disqualifying them in advance
*Originally posted by kirupa *
**I agree that the rule “the designer has to submit his own work” is a hassle, but it is the least he/she can do considering all the work RennaisanceGirl and the moderators place in looking through the submissions and writing critiques on them
**
Personally, I don’t mind if it’s a hassle for the designer to submit his own site. However, my problem is that it limits the pool of applicants to those that know of kirupaforum. And while this is happening, unflux’s request certainly has validity. Might as well make it “kirupaforum member site of the week.” And as for the work that rengirl does… she does all the work because she chooses to. I can bet that you can find at least 5 other people in kirupaforums who would be willing to help her out writing the reviews if you guys made a push for more applicants.
Hmm, how about this - we’ll leave SOTW the way it is for now. I’ll, instead, create a new section with a list of the best Flash sites that many members such as you may have seen. I don’t think there would be any problem adding popular sites there - kind of like a collection of some of the best sites many of you may have seen such as 2A, Juxt, etc.
haha… I’m not demanding anything in particular, so you dont have to do anything… it’s your site. However, I just think that you should look at the rules of SOTW and define them better. Maybe not the rules, but the purpose of it. I think you explained pretty well what the purpose of SOTW, and it goes with the current rules, but the purpose is not stated anywhere on that forum, and that’s why there’s questions about “what’s the purpose of this.”
But you know what I think would be a good idea? If we had a section where we write reviews for established members’ sites. This would be more extensive than site check. For example, I would love it if someone wrote two or three paragraphs on the good and bad things about my site, instead of just saying “good job” on the site check thread. I think it would something like this would attract more members, and you can make rules along what unflux is saying: “need to have at least 200 posts, and at least 30 of them have to be on the help section GIVING help.” Of course, newbies would protest, but it also gives them an incentive to learn and help people out. And spam on other threads can be stopped if the mods simply choose the site of someone who’s behaving well.
And I’d be willing to write reviews, as I’m sure other members would. So you’d have something like Site of the Week, and Site Check of the week… something like that would be more beneficial, I think.
I’ve been listening to Unflux’s little loop on his site… I just haven’t bothered to close that window for about an hour… it’s driving me nuts.
Big K’s idea for a list of cool sites is a good idea. Kind of liek the resources sticky in the Flash section. I also agree that you should have to submit your own site.
I also like the idea of a min post count. It might keep more ppl at the board. Most dont’ check out the other sections. A min post cout could create a better chance at more people sticking around. Even if they get stuck in random they stand a better chance at helping out in the other sections then if they just post and leave. It is not so much judgeing them on ther post count but increaseing the chances of more help on the board.
*Originally posted by sintax321 *
**Even if they get stuck in random they stand a better chance at helping out in the other sections then if they just post and leave. **
I agree with lavaboy having a section of the forum where people review your website is a great idea i personally think it should be done because its not good to post your site to get feedback and have answers like it sucks, ugly colors or whatever instead they should exp[lain why the think its ugly or why does it suck remember a website is supposed to be an experience so sometimes suers try to make the experience a bit difrent thats why theres diffrent concepts and designs, the main problem is that sometimes people make websites just to practice effects and other cool stuff and dont plan out their website with a storyboard, desing it on paper, or do some research as to what screen resolutions most people use and OS people use and a whole other bunch of stuff that you ahve to take in consideration when creating a website plus you have to describe your target audience and desing and program towards that in the end.
I love it when EG critics a website why? because he tells you exactly whats wrong with it in his point of view this is what site check should be about not just about getting nice site posts thats my opinion
If you guys need help then im sure you can post on the forum and a bunch of the members like myself will be willing to help you guys out if its help you need
keep up the good work guys love this site its like my home on the net now lol, formerly it was another forum where i got to be a mod but i wont post it here unless you guys are really interested in knowing which forum it was lol
I know this matter is probably dead, but most other award sites require the person to submit their own site, so why should this be any different. This is the same thing, it is an award for recognition. If the designer of the site does not feel compelled to submit their site here, then their site should not be submitted…
*Originally posted by Jubba *
**I know this matter is probably dead, but most other award sites require the person to submit their own site, so why should this be any different. This is the same thing, it is an award for recognition. If the designer of the site does not feel compelled to submit their site here, then their site should not be submitted… **
Well, you start running into the problems of legitimacy then. There’s TONS of websites that give awards. If kirupa.com has that attitude, who outside of kirupaforum is going to care about this award? Of course it’s an important award, but who’s going to care if the rules state that the designer should be the one to apply for it. First of all, the designer needs to KNOW about kirupa.com
Many site awards, and 90% of real life awards, are given to a pool of people eligible who have been nominated by someone else. If this is award is going to be an insider thing, it’s fine if the designers nominates themselves. However, if there’s going to be any legitimacy for this award, people should be able to nominate any site they want.
This matter isn’t dead…the flame thrower (which is great for burning threads) is taking a while to ship from my eBay supplier. I will consider creating a new section - similar to Flash Resources - except for exceptional Web sites.
We already have a Site Check section where people get critiques for their sites. More recently, after a suggestion from reverendflash, the SOTW subbmissions are voted on and critiqued as well. If we were to create a new section similar to Site Check, the same problems would ensue; simple one-liners used as a critique. ElectronGeek will probably be among a handful who will write good reviews in the new forum as well. I don’t want to create a virtual clone (clone-aid haha) of the Site Check forum.
Instead, my take is, we can improve Site Check by ensuring that we have enough members to write good critiques.
Grimdeath, as long as it isn’t something that people under 18/21 aren’t allowed to view, you are welcome to post the URL lol =)
Well if no one knew about it then no one but Kirupaforum members would post their sites, but that isn’t the case. The fact that people only come here and post their site for site of the week is evidence that people outside of Kirupaforum.com know about it…
*Originally posted by kirupa * We already have a Site Check section where people get critiques for their sites. More recently, after a suggestion from reverendflash, the SOTW subbmissions are voted on and critiqued as well. If we were to create a new section similar to Site Check, the same problems would ensue; simple one-liners used as a critique. ElectronGeek will probably be among a handful who will write good reviews in the new forum as well. I don’t want to create a virtual clone (clone-aid haha) of the Site Check forum.
I think you missed my point. this is not about starting a thread in the Site Check forum, this is actually about someone writing an article every week with criticism for a site. Not something that EVERYONE can just randomly post in saying “oh, cool site” but an article in which 3 or 4 experienced, responsible people get together, for a set weekly installment, and write a critique that’s more than 2 paragraphs, on the website of an established member. This wouldn’t be a clone of the site check forum, but something much better, and much more helpful. I mean, I’d be willing to start something like this, and I’m pretty sure EG would like to do that too…
the advantage of this is also that it’s established content… People would EXPECT to see something every week, and would come to the site to check it out.
