Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bring Back Webrings

arne.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#81

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

dragontamer wrote: post #37
JohnFen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm fairly certain that link-aggregation sites, like Hacker News, Reddit, Digg, Slashdot, and Lemmy have taken the place of Webrings. Link aggregation sites serve a completely different purpose from webrings, and don't substitute for them. That's why for many years, link aggregation sites and webrings coexisted.

The US Military was still doing horse cavalry charges during WW2 in the Philippines even as battleships, carriers, and tanks charged forth. There's a lot of "momentum" to technologies. I'm personally convinced that webrings are one of those ideas that died for good reason. There's just easier ways to organize ourselves online. I promise you: if you want a big list of links to follow, just start a Wiki. Or share them…

People who are arguing for webrings are not claiming they're easier. It turns out, if easy is your only metric, Everest would never have been climbed.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#82

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #78
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What term would you use to differentiate?

Differentiate what?

Between types or classes or generations of websites

I’m suggesting that we link all websites that exist in a unnamed class that includes the attributes of websites published prior to 2003 (as an example criteria based on when wordpress launched).

What would you name such a class other than Web 1.0 or old web or some such

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#83

Post by JohnFen »

joemi wrote: post #55
JohnFen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important part of what made webrings good, though, was that they were curated (some more than others, but still...) Having sites just list others the site owners think are similar is just the site providing a list of links to "friend sites" -- which also used to be a common thing. That's also fun and useful, but not what webrings are about.

I'm not sure I see the difference in curation between a webring and a "other cool sites" list, except that in the webring case there needs to be a central curator across several sites, so it's effectively just a single person's "other cool sites" list spread across several sites. "Other cool sites" lists were quite popular back then. That's what I used for site discovery instead of webrings.

The best webrings were curated by topic rather than just being a list of sites the ringmaster likes.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#84

Post by JohnFen »

dragontamer wrote: post #37
JohnFen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm fairly certain that link-aggregation sites, like Hacker News, Reddit, Digg, Slashdot, and Lemmy have taken the place of Webrings. Link aggregation sites serve a completely different purpose from webrings, and don't substitute for them. That's why for many years, link aggregation sites and webrings coexisted.

The US Military was still doing horse cavalry charges during WW2 in the Philippines even as battleships, carriers, and tanks charged forth. There's a lot of "momentum" to technologies. I'm personally convinced that webrings are one of those ideas that died for good reason. There's just easier ways to organize ourselves online. I promise you: if you want a big list of links to follow, just start a Wiki. Or share them…

> I'm personally convinced that webrings are one of those ideas that died for good reason.

Except that nothing came up that replaced them.

> if you want a big list of links to follow, just start a Wiki.

What wasn't the purpose of webrings, though.

I have no special love for webrings as a mechanism. I do have a love for what they did socially, though. If something else came along that served the same purpose, that would be awesome -- but so far, nothing has. I think that the main reason for that is that the web itself has changed from a place for people to a place for commerce.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#85

Post by dragontamer »

JohnFen wrote: post #84
dragontamer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Military was still doing horse cavalry charges during WW2 in the Philippines even as battleships, carriers, and tanks charged forth. There's a lot of "momentum" to technologies. I'm personally convinced that webrings are one of those ideas that died for good reason. There's just easier ways to organize ourselves online. I promise you: if you want a big list of links to follow, just start a Wiki. Or share them…

> I'm personally convinced that webrings are one of those ideas that died for good reason. Except that nothing came up that replaced them. > if you want a big list of links to follow, just start a Wiki. What wasn't the purpose of webrings, though. I have no special love for webrings as a mechanism. I do have a love for what they did socially, though. If something else came along that served the same purpose, that wou…

Social bonds are formed by humans, not technology. In effect, the technology used is almost a side-effect. You can build social bonds through emails, letters, walking and talking with people.

Today, kids are using Google Documents to communicate with each other in classrooms (ie: sharing links, collaborating on homework, etc. etc.), They don't need Webrings to share a set of links that happen to be on the same subject. In fact, you don't need any real tech at all, it could all just be a bulletin board, it could be a phone number that you leave somewhere with a computer hooked up that everyone connects with a 300 baud modem to. Etc. etc.

Or ya know, a Tweet, a Reddit post, a Facebook message. A google group. Etc. etc.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#86

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #82
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Differentiate what?

Between types or classes or generations of websites I’m suggesting that we link all websites that exist in a unnamed class that includes the attributes of websites published prior to 2003 (as an example criteria based on when wordpress launched). What would you name such a class other than Web 1.0 or old web or some such

"Non-Wordpress?" Otherwise that's just an arbitrary cut-off. If you want to convey something, you need to state it in English. "Pre-Wordpress" is another possibility.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#88

Post by kdwikzncba »

JohnFen wrote: post #23
scottyah wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or website curators all agree on a /webring.txt file (similar to a robots.txt) where they list websites they think are similar?

An important part of what made webrings good, though, was that they were curated (some more than others, but still...) Having sites just list others the site owners think are similar is just the site providing a list of links to "friend sites" -- which also used to be a common thing. That's also fun and useful, but not what webrings are about.

Links to friend sites - does this have a name?

As a way of discovering content, I love the idea.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#89

Post by nottorp »

sethammons wrote: post #62

I was thinking a webring like solution would allow discoverability while still owning your platform. Discoverability is a major concern I've heard from many bloggists. You could have a footer that is some simple js that allows you to go to a sampling of related articles. Could track cross-domain referrals and give them a cut of generated ad revenue (not sure how you'd track that just yet). To keep some of the riffraf…

One of the appeals of webrings is they used to link sites made by people passionate about a subject.

If you link "content creators" they'll have no value to the reader.

Re: Bring Back Webrings

#90

Post by nottorp »

jeromechoo wrote: post #42

I don't mind it. But as others have already said, a single website can easily break a web ring. Why not a simple "I'm Feeling Lucky" button that takes you to a random website in the ring?

Do I misremember when I think that every webring footer had a button to take you to the admin's page? Which may or may not have included a list of sites or at least a random jump button?
Post reply on HN