What makes a website "active"?

[OneMillionFurries]

I see on a lot of fanlistings, affiliate requirements, and webrings that participation requirements include a website being "active" in the last 2-3 months or so.

I have to ask though. What does an "active" website mean in the context of static sites? Is it just having the website update frequently? if so, how big fo those updates have to be to count? whole new pages? blog entries? little grammar fixes?

Also, doesn't the requirement for an "active" website kinda go against the chill "go at your own pace" "no requirements to post/engage" vibes that the web revival movement has? Is all the work a webmaster put into their site not worth showing off to others just because they went a few months without "activity"?

Idk, I guess as someone with AuDHD who goes through bursts of activity with my site followed by months of silence, im just confused on the whole thing? Because like, sure, I might not have updated my site in months due to executive dysfunction/hyperfocus issues, but I am still incredibly proud of it and show it off to whoever I can! I consider that active.

Sorry this sort of turned into a rant. I guess I'm just frustrated at the vagueness of the meaning of "active" and am (more than likely) excluded from fanlistings and webrings and stuff.

[shevek]

I think they indeed mean updates, even if it's just changes here and there - new blog post, new status, new page, updating your age in your about can all be these things, and more.
But I'd honestly not worry about it in terms of applications or getting to stay in the fanlistings and webrings. They usually don't have the time to check all sites for activity every couple months, and it may be hard to spot, too. If you have a Neocities profile, it is a bit easier since it shows when you last updated, but otherwise, it is difficult.

I can't say exactly why the activity requirement is there, since I don't get it either. Sites can be fun to look through even if they haven't been updated since 2005. I guess they want a vibrant community that ever changes their sites and adds to it, but in my view, having someone not update for a few months or years doesn't take away from the enjoyment someone can have clicking through a webring or list.

[OneMillionFurries]

I can't say exactly why the activity requirement is there, since I don't get it either. Sites can be fun to look through even if they haven't been updated since 2005. I guess they want a vibrant community that ever changes their sites and adds to it, but in my view, having someone not update for a few months or years doesn't take away from the enjoyment someone can have clicking through a webring or list.

Yeah these are my thoughts exactly. Like is my site/art not worth looking at just because I haven't uploaded anything new in a while? Social Media behavior right there

I guess the "community" aspect confuses me somewhat too. Like, doesn't most interaction with others in the Web Revival community happen in forums and discords and the such? The most direct interaction I see on someone's static site is people chatting in a chat box or leaving comments on a guest book. Things that don't depend on the Webmaster updating their site?

[Melooon]

On a very basic level I consider a site active if it’s updated every 6 months; once it’s longer than that, particularly past a year of no edits made (easy to see on Neocities) then I consider that inactive and past 3 years it’s abandoned. Those are pretty arbitrary opinions though  some sites (like gifypet) just don’t need updates very often, but I would not consider it abandoned or inactive even if it’s left for a year or two!

[aribluejeans]

I guess I'm just frustrated at the vagueness of the meaning of "active" and am (more than likely) excluded from fanlistings and webrings and stuff.

I find this frustrating too. I'm also AuDHD. I'm also physically disabled and so when I have my bursts of desire to work on my site, it doesn't always line up with days I am physically able to do so. I've put in a few applications for webrings recently and I'm a bit stressed about being removed for inactivity. It would just be a huge bummer if my disabilities disqualified me from participating in certain webrings. But that's all hypothetical and hasn't happened, so I'm hoping for the best and trying not to let it make me feel pressure to push myself when I'm in pain/not feeling it.

Again, just a hypothetical. I'm not trying to make a fuss and I don't want this message to be interpreted as me accusing anyone of ableism, because that's not at all what I'm doing. It's just something I personally worry about.

[Gans]

A website looks more active, if no dates / times can be found anywhere. A new visitor will have no idea, when the last update was made. Except through looking at the HTML file info.

To me, active means: It can be reached via HTTP / HTTPS (now!). What are updates worth? It's not all about updates. Build a monument, that will stand untouched for 20, 30, 40 odd years. Unchanged, yes, but inactive? As long as the creator or other users visit it, it's not inactive.
I can't imagine any web ring owner would deny a well-made, untouched website to be added to the list.

[xandra]

i wonder if they're using "active" to mean "has content to explore or the site owner is actively putting up content for folks to browse through." i've gotten webring applications from folks who just have a single page website with a brief introduction of their name, age, and links to their social media and they do not update it further than that, and it's not really the type of website that lends to "exploring" the personal web. i hate to even compare it to a carrd because some of those are really in-depth and share a lot about the person creating the site. it's easier to say "have an active site" versus "have a complete site," which can be harder to actually describe. (my site's been up for 2 years and it's still not complete!)