Talk:Webring

message: Is there any policy for or against having any Wikipedia belong to Webrings (with the attendant need to have the WebRing "navbar" somewhere on a prominent page)? If OK in principle, are there any technical problems? Robin Patterson 4 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
:The wiki software doesn't allow all html elements, and no javascript, which would make it difficult to place the navbar. For the English wikipedia, I can't see we would gain anything; how many top 60 sites are part of a webring? For the Maori wikipedia (or any other edition with a relatively small number of articles and small traffic), a webring might bring in more users, but I'd suggest you go to the sites on the webring you have in mind first and see if they'll link to it explicitly.-gadfium 4 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)
:Having a webring would entail Wikipedia endorsing certain sites, which it is not allowed to do.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  In fact, that page specifically says that Wikipedia can not endorse businesses, which are the entities that run webrings.Superm401 | Talk 11:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:: Which only supports the conclusion I came to in the Removed POV paragraph section of this discussion page - that the article ought to be deleted. Note that while Wikipedia does have an article for the Webring.com service, it lacks any for Webring's competitors (including Ringsurf and Ringlink), the larger of the two only being barely referred to in passing in an article that carries a name of its primary competitor. 
::"A similar website is RingSurf.com, which uses the term 'Net Rings'. The site first appeared in the Internet Archive in June 1998." 
::Literally nothing else is written about any other ring hosting service, unless I have missed something. To mention one company in an industry and barely even acknowledge the existence of its largest competitor (and then only in passing), and not even say that little about any of its other competitors, is certainly a kind of endorsement, an implication that one competitor is worthy of mention and the others aren't, except maybe as brief cites in an article named after and almost entirely written about that one company; in other words, that Ringsurf.com is worth mentioning only as it relates to Webring.com and all the others (Bravenet sitering et al) aren't to be mentioned at all. Further, as I argue below, there really is no hope of making this article even remotely NPOV, owing to the nature of who it is that Webring.com is likely to come into conflict with and the demands of verifiability. The pages of Webring.com users are seldom, if ever, going to be considered "verifiable sources", as prominent sites seldom use that service. 24.14.125.18 12:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This article feels broken to me.  Most of it talks about the [WebRing] service, but the beginning section talks about webring as a generic concept.  I'd prefer one of the following:
* Create a new article, "WebRing (service)", move all the WebRing-specific info there, and link to it from here
* Since "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", rename this article to "WebRing", and streamline the content to pertain mostly to that service (we could still have an "Other webring services" section or the like.
Thoughts?  --Rehcsif 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no thoughts so far, I've taken a crack at just reorganizing the page to illustrate both concepts.  --Rehcsif 17:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the process of merging in Web ring, I kind of reversed this.  It might still make sense to separate out WebRing, but that would leave little about the concept.  For now, I suggest we treat them together. I'd like more about generic webrings.  If we can add it, it will make sense to extract most of the WebRing-specific material. Superm401 - Talk 07:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig needed?

message: I was surprised to see that this article is associated with spam, & don't understand the connection. Obviously, Webrings are a means to improve visibility for websites -- but in the way a web portal or a directory does, by collecting links of related sites. It is passive, unlike spam, which is distinguished by actively assaulting the end user for attention.
My concern is not based on my feeling s about spam or advertising: it is based on concern about categorizing articles. -- llywrch 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean, and I agree. This article should not be categorized under forms of Spam. --Surfaced 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this considered part of "spamming"? 

message: WebRing.com is the main focus of this article because we are the first publicly-available WebRing management system.  The history of web rings is mostly (but not exclusively) the history of WebRing.com.
WebRing is mentioned in spam because it's is considered a type of link farm, although we try to avoid that comparison.
I would argue that web rings are notable not for their current status (a usable but not great advertising system), but for the place they/we have in Internet history.  Anyone who was an avid web surfer between 1994 and 1997 probably knows web rings, even if they don't know the company.
This article is another example of why I think the Wikipedia foundation should host a wiki of original research.  Research could go through peer review there, and then be used on WP.  --66.241.66.190 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not truth that webring is kind of link farm. Webring connects sites of same theme together, these sites has content, so each has some value for visitor. Link farm not (or at least not primary). There is no other gain for members of webring than visitors from rest of the ring. Moreover, webrings are transparent and you can say you are on ring at first sight, there is nothing tricky or obstructive. If you want call webring spam, you should treat each catalogue or portal on web as spam as well. --82.208.37.177 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifications (from an anonymous WebRing.com staffer)

message: The opening paragraph of this article alleges that Webrings are used to influence search results.  That is absolute nonsense.  This is the kind of misinformation that has made Wikipedia so infamous for being a horrible resource.  I will give others a chance to weigh in.  I would LOVE to see the authoritative resource that proves you can use a Webring to influence search results.Michael Martinez (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association with Search Engine Spamming is Ludicrous 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Webring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ringsurf.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There were also other types of mutual linking. Some may have ceased to exist, but there was another type that used the concept of a Railway Train linking system. Many people were often on more than one type and "brand" of linking system.
Based on my limited knowledge of the secret algorithms, if there was ever any benefit to boosting search results, such type of benefits were regularly "algorithmed out" .... 
14.203.139.198 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other types of mutual linking. 

message: Would a list of active webrings maintained by enthusiasts be a reliable source for this fact? Here's one list of active webrings; it's on a personal website though... Mincerafter42 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webrings are still maintained by enthusiats, citation needed