[freediver]

Feel free to suggest changes to criteria for inclusion. It is mostly the way it is now as the entire project is maintained by one person - me :)

[rambambram]

It might sound stupid, but I'm not a git or github user, I would rather fill in a webform to submit a new website and feed.

[freediver]

The (artificial) barrier to entry is there for a reason - one person maintains the entire project and because it is fairly technical to submit the acceptance rate has been close to 99%.

[rambambram]

I guessed that might be the reason, smart move. Have you tried a webform in the past which resulted in a lot of crappy submissions?

[lich_king]

Looking at the criteria again, I can think of at least three things that arbitrarily exclude large swathes of the small web:

1) The requirement that it needs to be a blog. There's plenty of small-web sites of people who obsess over really wonderful and wacky stuff (e.g., https://www.fleacircus.co.uk/History.htm) but don't qualify here.

2) The requirement that it needs to be updated regularly. Same as above - I get that infrequently updated websites don't generate a "daily morning" feed, but admitting them wouldn't harm in any way.

3) Blanket ban on Substack-like platforms while allowing Blogspot, Wordpress.com, YouTube, etc. Bloggers follow trends, so you're effectively excluding a significant proportion of personal blogs created in the last six years, including the stuff that isn't monetized or behind interstitials. The outcomes are pretty weird: for example, noahpinionblog.blogspot.com is on your list, but noahpinion.blog is apparently no longer small web.

[freediver]

1) It has to have a feed (we dont want to overcrawl) so hence 'blog' - more accurately any site with an RSS/atom feed would do

2) 'Regularly' means posted in the last 2 years to be included

3) Substack has an annoying subcribe popup and ads/popups are against the spirit of what this represents