* If you request another review, please be sure that you've made the changes that were suggested the first time (or explain why you haven't).

* If your site was turned down, it was for a good reason. Our editors are all human, we make mistakes. But we also have guidelines and each other to run ideas against. A polite appeal will be heard and responded to, but our decisions are final.

* If you've learned something you feel is significant or might apply to other sites, we'd appreciate if you'd post your story. You'll appreciate others' posts there, so please reciprocate. Good karma, you know.

Small addendum: In general when you are writing to editors or posting on these forums, remember to be courteous and respectful. Kind words will get you a lot further than rudeness and/or demands.

All of the editors here are volunteers and all of us have lives and many other demands on our time. We're here to help, but a little consideration is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Soraya
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º

Has there been any consideration of changing the number of votes needed for a GW? It is taking an aweful lot of time for new sites to be reviewed and for old ones to collect enough votes.

-----
-= AOM TealFox a.k.a Kim =-
Administrative Ops. Manager
Co-Founder of the New Worlds Project
Find out more at: http://rpgnewworlds.net

Keeping with three is best, that way no one feels 'jipped' by one bad review.

But are there even three active editors left?

The staff has received a swift nudge, but just because they're a little busy doesn't change the 3-vote rule. I didn't make that rule, but I do however condone and follow it.

... But the simplest answer as to why a given site isn't getting Gold Wyrm votes isn't a lack of editors or lack of editorial effort. The site just may not be good enough. It might not be something as simple as one or two issues that easily disqualify; it might not be that the site is bad & thus receives negative votes. The vast majority of websites--definitively--are going to fit somewhere in the nebulous middle. That is, it may be good, but just not good enough. If a given editor cannot articulate why that site is lacking, or what special spark is missing, or just that he or she cannot do so without sounding petty, then ofttimes the best alternative is just not to say anything.

~~~
Lost-Souls.co.nr
Official site for the Lost Souls Pack
And the Midian Dark Fantasy Role-playing Game
Now New & Improved

Gold Wyrm implies "Best of the Best" and nothing less than that will do, it might be very...very good, but it must be nearly flawless to get the GW and most of the time webmasters will go back two or three times even if their site is already exceptional by most standards.

Please note that these guidelines aren't optional, all sites regardless of whether or not you want a GW must have all of the required information. This is for your benefit and ours. Why do we need it? Its so if later in the thread your awarded with a GW the editor can easily find the Database entry and modify it, and no one is walking around asking for links or wonder which editor would be the best to get replies from. Its for everyone's benefit, and usually editors won't even look at your site without the provided information.

Also hyperlinking any links provided is also useful, we're busy and kind of lazy in that respect so remember to hyperlink! Just selecting "Full HTML" will automatically parse textual links into clickable ones.