Those are your shoes. These are my shoes. We've got issues.

I sense a healthy amount of skepticism in your previous comment. I said "if submitted today" which is essentially the same as "if those sites had been released today", yet you said that I said "re-submitted", and I'm putting words in YOUR mouth? Then you go on a tirade about self-righteous angst-ridden kids who downvote sites and are easy reads for a psych major, but they still teach superiority complexes and paranoid delusions, not to mention false generalizations and unsubstantiated inferences, right?

Funny comment thread. "NOISE SITES AREN'T SATIRE!" Did you see that? I put what you said in all caps. Most noise sites are spoofs (much like Meet The Spartans), some are farces, and some are actual quality parody. Many are certainly satirical, and many are certainly awful and unimaginative. As for '05 sites being poorly rated if submitted today... that's because they've already been done. Originality keeps people from getting bored, keeps people from making Meet The Spartans, try it out sometime.

(((I could have resisted, but I chose not to. I participated by choice, not temptation.)))

and certain periods of ytmnd's history may be completely unrepresented or overly represented. Furthermore, some sites may get in at one point that may not have gotten in at any other point in history merely because the voting pattern at that point in time is higher than at any other time even though it is still hierarchically in the same position relative to those other sites nominated along side it as in any other period). Those are the things to consider as I see it.

The drawbacks of each choice are fairly simple: Large populations make mediocre choices, while small populations have the ability to make terrible and/or great choices along with mediocre ones. Selecting a definite amount of sites each period better characterizes the progression of ytmnd in terms of time but may allow unfit sites to squeeze in during a down period, while a voting standard may fail to capture the actual history of ytmnd (voting patterns fluctuate...

as it will need to be larger to make up for the lengthy prehistory. After that, there can either be a definite amount of sites to be entered at each voting period or a certain vote standard that a site must reach (like baseball's hall of fame) wherein 0 sites may possibly be entered or some higher number (likely capped). That's a pretty general template for the typical Hall of Fame, and it really just depends on whose opinion you care about and at which point of the process.

As for the hall of fame, the general template is for some group (either a select group or the population as a whole) to nominate sites for entry into the hall of fame and then, from that group of sites, have some group (either a select group or the population as a whole, and they do not have to be the same group both times) to vote on the narrowed group of sites as to which gain entry into the hall of fame. The qualifications for the original launch will likely differ from the latter groups...