Hey guys. I'm not sure if anyone else uses this resource but I've just finished updating it. I've included the rankings from 91, 97, 2009, 2010 and 2011. I'm not saying I'll be maintaining it or anything like that, I've just brought it up to date. The reason for it was because I'd recently had my own annual anking collection completed by a very good poster on here who thankfully scanned me a copy of his ring mag. So yeah, just to let you know, it's completed now :good http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings
If it is a dry , plain informative work made/gathered by u , then i will have 2 thank u . I also have 2 ask : do u have editor's permissions at boxrec ?
You're welcome. Yeah I do. They weren't keen on one of my vain suggestions but the actual updates they were fine with.
I am a big fan of internet resources but i get a sexual thrill from wanting to check a ring rankings and raking through my magazines for it.
I have just copied every annual ranking into a spreadsheet so I just use the search function, nowhere near as fun as raking through magazines but much quicker!
I appreciate these kinds of works . What do u mean in your second paragraph ? what vain suggestions ? And I must mention that so far I was never interested and more than that , I even never searched 4 Ring Magazine's ratings because i either have my own which r post factum or can recreate d pre factum by my own but it's good 2 have them online in respected places like boxrec and wikipedia and i believe it may b easier 4u 2 also put them in wikipedia by simply copy pasting your work .
It is handy to have. I have been getting through about 15 magazines a week lately because i am spending 3 hours a day 3 times a week on the bus. Nothing better than showing off a bit of sexy 1950s ring magazine to the dole scroungers on the bus.
It's hard to explain but i've created future pages for ease of completion that are absent of actual rankings but instead included the phrase "lufcrazy cannot predict the future" the editors didn't like that so changed it back to a generic "name 1, name 2 etc" I'm not sure how the wiki pages are created but if it's the same code I could theoretically copy the database over.
