|
There's your mistake. Most votes doesn't imply best, it implies most popular via a plurality of the system of balloting. Of my personal choice for the 10 best MUDs (RPI, H&S, and every other kind), only 4 appear on the first page (in other words out of the 20 most popular on TMS) and only one of my three favorites is there.
Because "Top" can have several meanings. Top as it relates to popularity? Top as it relates to quality? Top as it relates to size? Top as it relates to originality? "Top MUD Sites" does not define "top" via its name alone.
The latter preferably since it'd be a redundant default with the front page.
Personally, unless their codebase is opened up for examination, how do we know that Iron Realms didn't steal DIKU code and certify themselves? After all, Medievia claimed originality for a long time (now they're just remaining silent but still not admitting the lie), yet they were essentially thieves that your system is supposed to prevent certifying. What would stop them from claiming an original codebase, then certifying themselves?
And what's to keep one of them from not certifying MUDs that it deems as competition or with whom they hold a personal grudge? And again, is it one vote (the code originator) that's required or a percentage (ie, majority, 2/3, etc) of all the code originators?
The real difference that would be nice would be front-page columns, listing the top 5 or top 10 of each category (and expanding the categories). That way, while still using a flawed popularity-based system, it would more accurately reflect the diversity of MUD types out there.
Sorry, but it seems like your system would just be another way for the commercial MUDs to buy their way to the forefront of the search like they have the front page.
Take care,
Jason
|