![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
I have the impression that the way the page is structured, it puts some servers in advantage over other servers. In a growing "battle" for users, and the related issue of survival of smaller servers, especially because creating new servers is becoming more easy than before, I think this is not fair towards those smaller servers.
"most common servers" is vague and subjective, this categorization cannot be accepted unless there is objective data for it.
A single ordering, either alphabetic or by statistics, would be a more objective way to present information.
As SL is a reference site, the obvious choice is alphabetic...
Note that the forum for this page expresses similar issues.
imo, it is a service to readers to have the big servers (absolutely and/or those most widely used in english speaking community) listed visibly and not obscured in a long list. utility, not objectivity, fairness whatever.
if people would fight a battle for users in SL, they could use community advertisements, but no one bothered to do so since the old ones were wiped out 30 months ago as far as I can tell.
But where are these objective numbers?
I have have the impression that such a classification does no right to e.g. DGS, while it is IMO a respectable TBP server.
I'm sure all those servers, when asked, will dig out the best stats to prove they are the biggest server.
Also, I wonder if that's a reason for new players to go to those servers.
So the question is: what defines a good, recommendable server for a newcomer? I think this is a difficult question due to the many parameters that come into play.
Edit added: plus: is it the task of a reference library to recommend servers?
You say "utility, not objectivity, ..." but "utility" is also very subjective.
About displaying the "most common servers" DGS should also be mentioned (having around 3000 regular users)... it just so happens, that it cannot be directly compared with the other "most common servers" as DGS is a purely turn-based server. But why should that be a criteria not to list it ?
ppl, it is a wiki. put it in the top section, if you think it belongs there. completely rewrite the page, if you like. we can have discussions, when anyone actually disagrees. this kind of discussion with a rhetorical question and lengthy headscratching without mentioning the issue (dgs not included) or any edits on the mainpage is really a bad habit carried over from wikipedia etc.
It is a reasonable point that the page should be fair, but I don't think any claim made about the servers here is unreasonable. The servers that are listed as most popular are actually the most popular ones. That said, I would be happy to see a different approach, were we list servers alphabetically and have standard information for each.
ServerName?
Additional info can be put in a homepage for the server