3 ms·

Feel free to suggest changes to criteria for inclusion. It is mostly the way it is now as the entire project is maintained by one person - me :)

lich_king 7mo ago
Looking at the criteria again, I can think of at least three things that arbitrarily exclude large swathes of the small web: 1) The requirement that it needs to be a blog. There's plenty of small-web sites of people who obsess over really wonderful and wacky stuff (e.g., https://www.fleacircus.co.uk/History.htm https://www.fleacircus.co.uk/History.htm) but don't qualify here. 2) The requirement that it needs to be updated regularly. Same as above - I get that infrequently updated websites don't generate a "daily morning" feed, but admitting them wouldn't harm in any way. 3) Blanket ban on Substack-like platforms while allowing Blogspot, Wordpress.com, YouTube, etc. Bloggers follow trends, so you're effectively excluding a significant proportion of personal blogs created in the last six years, including the stuff that isn't monetized or behind interstitials. The outcomes are pretty weird: for example, noahpinionblog.blogspot.com is on your list, but noahpinion.blog is apparently no longer small web.
- freediver 7mo ago
  1) It has to have a feed (we dont want to overcrawl) so hence 'blog' - more accurately any site with an RSS/atom feed would do 2) 'Regularly' means posted in the last 2 years to be included 3) Substack has an annoying subcribe popup and ads/popups are against the spirit of what this represents
rambambram 7mo ago
It might sound stupid, but I'm not a git or github user, I would rather fill in a webform to submit a new website and feed.
- freediver 7mo ago
  The (artificial) barrier to entry is there for a reason - one person maintains the entire project and because it is fairly technical to submit the acceptance rate has been close to 99%.
  - rambambram 7mo ago
    I guessed that might be the reason, smart move. Have you tried a webform in the past which resulted in a lot of crappy submissions?

lich_king 7mo ago

Looking at the criteria again, I can think of at least three things that arbitrarily exclude large swathes of the small web: 1) The requirement that it needs to be a blog. There's plenty of small-web sites of people who obsess over really wonderful and wacky stuff (e.g., https://www.fleacircus.co.uk/History.htm https://www.fleacircus.co.uk/History.htm) but don't qualify here. 2) The requirement that it needs to be updated regularly. Same as above - I get that infrequently updated websites don't generate a "daily morning" feed, but admitting them wouldn't harm in any way. 3) Blanket ban on Substack-like platforms while allowing Blogspot, Wordpress.com, YouTube, etc. Bloggers follow trends, so you're effectively excluding a significant proportion of personal blogs created in the last six years, including the stuff that isn't monetized or behind interstitials. The outcomes are pretty weird: for example, noahpinionblog.blogspot.com is on your list, but noahpinion.blog is apparently no longer small web.

freediver 7mo ago
1) It has to have a feed (we dont want to overcrawl) so hence 'blog' - more accurately any site with an RSS/atom feed would do 2) 'Regularly' means posted in the last 2 years to be included 3) Substack has an annoying subcribe popup and ads/popups are against the spirit of what this represents

rambambram 7mo ago

It might sound stupid, but I'm not a git or github user, I would rather fill in a webform to submit a new website and feed.

freediver 7mo ago
The (artificial) barrier to entry is there for a reason - one person maintains the entire project and because it is fairly technical to submit the acceptance rate has been close to 99%.
- rambambram 7mo ago
  I guessed that might be the reason, smart move. Have you tried a webform in the past which resulted in a lot of crappy submissions?