If Webring had done an open poll . . .
about this new change of policy and alerted everyone of the poll, I would bet that people would have voted 'No' on it.
Yeah, it was a good idea but how much they offered to give us in return was rather pitiful.
Now if they had given us 10 free to manage and 15 to be in, it wouldn't be too bad. As I had downed my 42 rings down to 20 before I widdled them down to the alloted 2. I knew I could keep at least 10 good rings but not without paying more money, which I couldn't afford.
I narrowed by 48 webrings down to 35 (aside from the new one I made today!), not from a reluctance to pay for them, but simply because they really served no purpose. The rest of my rings, though they are not big hitters on use or even activity, they have at least enough to give me an average number of use above a zero. The others though, Iíve advertised and hopefully offer something people like/want, get enough members every other week, if not week, that will pay for the management of the webrings.
I think the real key here to the limit of 2 webrings and 5 memberships, really is to get activity clustered in larger webrings rather than a bunch of smaller/tiny/used webrings. The more people joining a webring, the more credits they can earn, which would thus, then pay for the membership fees.
The new program isnít designed that you have to pay upfront for it, but itís a pay as you go, calculated daily. And you can earn credits weekly.
In the last 14 weeks, I earned ď10.35Ē. So thatís an average of about 70 cents a week and if that trend continues, itís enough to deflect the new premium membership fee. Iíve earned everything from 15 cents for ď1_sites_in_1_ringsĒ to $1.60 for ď4_sites_in_2_ringsĒ.
The new system will just really make us all a little more competitive and aggressive to get new members and keep them! Not to mention, this new system also gives us a new avenue to try that may also give us some more credits to pay for our memberships and advertise our rings/sites.