Observations of a Terminal Realist

by Craig Lindberg, Chairman
Chicago Internet Review (site closed)
8 September 1999

Print Version

I, like those who have come before me, would like to thank Don for the opportunity to share my thoughts in this forum. Since the inception of the Chicago Internet Review (CIR), I have contemplated many things relating to website awards in private, now I get to ponder them in public.

In this article, I will say some things that may be upsetting to some, but please keep reading and please keep in mind that this article was not written for the purpose of offending. It is quite the opposite, in fact. The purpose of this article is to make you think.

We live in the real world, and not even the fantastic power of the Internet can change that. Yes, many people use it as an escape, but sooner or later they all must come back to reality, and this is the forum in which I will discuss the topic. To put things simply, reality is what drives all events. We can not change this simple fact. How foolish would we be to suggest otherwise? Personally, I do not see the point in wasting a lot of time discussing things that will never happen. I would rather look at the reasons behind why things are the way they are and use this information to improve myself.

I hope that by sharing my observations from both sides of the award process others will begin to think about the real workings of the Internet awards world. If you do not agree with my conclusions, that's great. We will all have our own perceptions of reality. I applaud you because to disagree means that you have considered the facts for yourself and thought them through to conclusion. And, if this is the case, I have succeeded in what I set out to accomplish.

Some Observations as an Award Giver and Seeker

Every day as I am reviewing sites, I find myself asking the same questions and thinking the same thoughts. Why do you apply for my award when you don't even post awards? Will my award mean anything to this person other than the fact that it is a 5.0 award for their collection? Did this guy even glance at the criteria? The list goes on and on. Now I, like many award givers who take their programs very seriously, do get frustrated with applicants from time-to-time, but these questions I have posed generally do not bother me because I understand the answer. I really have no room to complain anyway, because I knew the answer before I started the CIR. I have accepted reality. And, that reality is quite simple.

"In the pursuit of happiness"

People do what makes them feel good. It is an issue of simple self-gratification. As a good friend put it: "It is the pursuit of happiness." Not to change the subject, but we see it every day. Every time we open the newspaper or turn on the TV it is right there in our face. From our leaders on down, our entire world culture is evolving into a self-centered, shortsighted mass with instant gratification the order of the moment.

Why would we expect any different where the Internet is concerned? If anything, the Internet facilitates this phenomenon. When a person can do anything or be anyone with the simple stroke of a key, he feels a tremendous amount of power. And that power fuels his ego, and as the ego grows, it becomes more and more in need of feeding. If instant gratification is at hand, of course it will be taken. And, when the Internet is the medium involved, all of this is done with total anonymity so there is no hesitation or second thought.

People change.

The good news for those of us who take this stuff seriously is that there are other people like us. Of course I am not trying to imply that everyone is a crazed egomaniac. What I believe is that many people who are new to the Internet are so overwhelmed with all the power and resources at their disposal that they act in ways that ordinarily they would not. Fortunately, as time passes and we gain a better respect of the new environment, we begin to act more in character.

Think back to when you were a child. Was Christmas not the most exciting thing in the world? With all the wonder of Santa Claus and the presents, did you not act different than you did on other days? Or did you always get up at three in the morning to stare at a tree in your living room? But as the years went by, and Christmas became a more familiar event, did it not become less of an excitement? Couldn't you now sleep in until the sun came up? And as you matured further, didn't the giving become as important as the receiving?

It seems to me that the Internet affects people in much the same way. This is not to say that people, as they become more familiar with Internet awards, will want to start their own — although that certainly happens. Rather, the point is that as people become more and more a part of the community, their focus changes. And, as they learn and understand the culture, their respect for it increases. Certainly this is not true in all cases, but it is not uncommon for the award applicant to become more conscientious of the criteria and purpose of the awards for which he applies and for the Award giver to become more serious about his program and the sites he awards.

Like award programs, not all applicants are the same.

David Bancroft of Focus Award Sites has very adeptly laid out a system of classifying awards with a rating system that ranges from 1 to 5. Sites are rated based on their level of professionalism and overall value to the Internet community. He has also recognized that serious awardmasters will strive to improve their programs, and he has provided a mechanism for awards to upgrade their rating as they bring up their quality. Many will never progress. The rating level is solely determined by the dedication of the webmaster and his desire to make his program a valuable contribution to the Internet.

Working with the Chicago Internet Review has given me the opportunity to meet and follow many people through their applications and websites, and it has been my observation that there is a very similar hierarchy that most award seekers fall into. If I may borrow some terminology from Mr. Bancroft:

Sometimes we have to look in the mirror.

These observations are not only the result of looking at the applicants for my award — something I do several hundred times per week, but also looking at myself — something I do each and every day, and I have been there.

I started as a Novice. To this day, I can vividly remember the first awards I ever saw. I can also remember the fascination that it held for me. I knew nothing about them. What they were, who gave them, and how you got them was all a mystery. I had just published my first personal page, and I was certainly eager to show it off. It did not take long for me to find someone to present me with my first award, and I remember that to be very exciting. I never had the time or energy to make it to Level 2, but I did make a short stop at level three.

When I discovered David's Award Sites, I applied for quite a few awards including all the top ones, and I am embarrassed to say that I did not read the criteria of very many. As the awards came rolling in, something went off inside me.

No, I did not have a heart attack. I began to suspect that many of the awards I was winning really didn't mean that much. Inside, I knew that my site wasn't all that great. I also noticed that I did not win very many of the higher level awards. Soon after I started, I quit collecting awards and shut down my site.

How all this changed me.

During this time however, I had developed quite a fascination with Internet Awards. One of the most profound revelations for me was that all awards are not created equal. I know that sounds obvious, but it must not be. If it were, would there be people that are proud of awards that are issued simply for signing a guestbook? And, would there be people who are proud to display these awards on their site?

With this in mind, I set out to develop an awards program that had meaning and added value to the Internet Community. Achieving the Award Sites 5.0 rating was my goal. I knew that if I could reach that high, I would have succeeded in what I had set out to accomplish. With the help of a great group of friends, on January 20, 1999 we made our objective. Since the inception of the CIR, time has flown by. I don't think that any of us involved realized how consuming the project would be. It has also been very rewarding. We have met so many great people who are committed to what they do. I think that has been a very refreshing experience for us all.

About six months ago, I started a new personal site. This one is much better than its predecessor, and I apply for awards from time-to-time. I am very selective of the awards for which I apply, and I read and consider the criteria before I do. Never do I complain about the level of award I receive. In fact, I am grateful for each and every one, and I make it a point to thank the issuer personally after each award is posted. I consider myself to be at level four, and I am comfortable with that because I think it says that I extend the same courtesy to the award givers as I would like applicants to extend to my program.

Real World Application of These Observations

I think the concept that applicants are at different levels of development is very important and has some profound implications. There is a lot of talk about what is wrong with the Internet awards world and what is needed to fix it. The problem is that if all applicants have different needs — a logical assumption — then finding a "one-size fits all" solution is not very likely. A disparity of merit at the supply side is quite evident, but it is much more hidden on the demand side.

Because of the closely tied nature of supply and demand, it is vital that we identify the true character of the demand before we can identify ways to improve the system. The "levels" of the demand side that I have laid out are very simplistic, but they illustrate the point well, and they allow a logical conclusion to be formed about some of the questions that are being thrown about.

Variety is the spice of life.

One question I would like to address is the possibility of a universal standard for Internet Awards. While we see some localized pockets of standardization such as the criteria necessary to be listed at Website Awards, I do not believe a universal standard is possible. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply ready and willing. I think the hierarchical model of award seeker development supports this conclusion well. If there are such vastly different reasons why people seek awards, it stands to reason that there will always be different types of awards available to suit their needs.

In addition, I think that the popularity of Award Sites further illustrates the point. The fact that so many people are awarding sites with what might be considered inferior awards and that so many people use the Award Sites program to find them only strengthens these conclusions.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that I'd like to see universal standards. Part of the excitement for me is the individual personalities of the different awards. I can see a distinct personality at the CIR, and I notice a similar phenomenon in many of the other programs. I make it a point to always look at the awards that an applicant site has won. It plays no role whatsoever in my rating of the site, but it does give me great insight into the personality of the other award programs. It is also fun to compare how different award programs rated the applicant sites compared to how they rated my personal site.

I have been able to learn much from this. Over the past year, I have seen many very distinct patterns. Nowadays, after reviewing a site, I can almost predict what awards it will have won. To me, this ability to express one's individuality is the stuff that makes the Internet great.

The color of money.

One factor that I have not heard much discussion of, but will undoubtedly make a substantial impact on the awards community someday is money. As popularity of Internet awards increases, it is certain to find its way into the equation. I believe that if there is ever to be anything that resembles a global standard for Internet awards, money will have to be involved. It is the only force strong enough to overcome the selfish motivations that dominate the award culture as we know it today.

Unfortunately for all of us, this virtually assures that Internet Awards, taken as a whole, will never have the kind of "meaning" that many of us would like to see. Without universal standards, they can not, and when money enters the system, they will not. It is the unavoidable corruptive nature of cash. Like the initial blast of power one finds when he discovers the Internet, money will change the way we operate. I do not want to see money become a factor, but the history of the Internet strongly suggests that it will.

Where do we go from here?

The bottom line is that change is inescapable. Regardless of whether it is for better or worse, one can only guess what we will be writing about one year from now let alone three or five. Some of it is likely to be quite similar, but there will be untold new twists.

This is why some of the concerns I hear puzzle me. Why we waste our time worrying about things that are beyond our control is past my understanding. People will continue to apply for awards without reading the criteria, and people will continue to start new fly-by-night award programs. These facts and countless others like them are unavoidable. I submit that our best course of action is to do what we can to make the upcoming changes positive.

To me, this means leading by example. If we are award givers, we need to concentrate on making our programs even better. If we are award seekers, we need to be more diligent in respecting the award programs for which we ask recognition. As we improve, others will see our success, and they will follow. With any luck, as money plays a bigger role, it too will follow our lead. The Internet awards world will never be a perfect place. That is simple reality, but it can be a better place. We hold that power in our hands.

In the future, when we get frustrated, I think we all need to remember two things: we must remember why things are the way they are, and, most importantly, we need to remember why we do this. We need to remember that it's all about helping others, and it's about having fun.