A potential issue I see right off the bat with webrings powered by onionring or similar is that there would be namespace collisions if I join more than one webring powered by the same package. For example, the variable name sites is just too generic in an environment in which webrings and other reciprocal linking and site listing schemes are abundant.

i tried to join some webrings that were powered by JS, but i ended up deciding against it because a lot of the time, they were poorly written scripts, and would error out if it couldn't find the element on the page instead of silently failing, so they didn't necessarily work that well for a universally-rendered site like this. i could just include the script on the specific page i need it, but the way the markup is structured on this site doesn't really lend itself well to one-off scripts on a specific page, and ultimately isn't worth the effort.

also, it seems like a genuinely worse experience to have an <a /> tag that has no hyperlink until some JS has been executed. I think having some backend to support a webring should be a must for anybody looking to create one. I was hoping to join the https://forum.agoraroad.com webring (https://voicedrew.xyz/wr/), but until they have a server-side implementation, i probably won't

I registered at Agora Road yesterday. Still waiting for an admin to activate my account nearly 24 hours later.

You're right about webrings needing a backend. One of the biggest reasons they fail is the sysop getting tired of all the leg work required to keep one going.

I've created the tables for a multi-webring system in my database and written some of the code, but it's on the back burner until I get my CMS finished and do a few things to give sensitive people more control over the lights and sound.

I plan to have a cron job go around every night to (1) check that the member sites are up, and (2) check that the embed code can be found on the page they submitted when they joined. Sites that fail the check will be automagically de-listed until they resolve the issue.

My biggest problem with it was how they will want you to load Javascript from their server and run it on your page. It involves a lot of trust that I just don't have. Maybe we should come up with a list of reasons why we don't like these kinds of webrings and try to educate maintainers about it?

yeah another good point. i feel like the people who make JS webrings are mostly hobbyist that aren't professional programmers, but it only takes one malicious person to give the whole thing a bad look

Maybe there is something obvious I am missing here but is there any reason that a webring page couldn't just be iframed in?

You would be losing control over styling on the frame contents, but nothing is needed other than regular HTML and somebody to maintain the list of links on the core webring page, which most webrings have anyway. It would look a little disjointed from the rest of the site but IMO this isn't a bad trade off, as it's links to other's content and having it look different makes it clearer that you aren't responsible for anything on those other sites.

If you really wanted to you could probably periodically download the iframe page and use your own CSS with it, no Javascript needed, just a little scripting and reading the HTML to make sure there isn't anything dodgy in there.

I just joined one recently that does similar to a few other where they are like: "Here's the code, copy it over / upload it to your site". I do that but then ofc I get the email "hey pls wen u hab da chance, pls update to new code: url" bruh.

idk

honestly yeah, it's worrying over nothing and there are ways around it. personally, I just prefer to have full control over the content on my own site and I think JS-based webrings are the worst option. But even with a server-side approach, there's nothing stopping the author from changing the source image of the webring button to be a little 88x31 image of swastikas that reads "I HATE JEWS!!!!!" or something similar lol