Noam - yes I wasn't entirely clear there. I have had a quick look at the site (not in depth yet!) and I saw some of the comments and discussion re:public and how it works.

My point was that making a (unsuccessful) grant application citeable requires it to be somewhere, even if it is not fully visible. I see your efforts as a first step along this road but I am unsure what the next step should (or can) be. JC's point about Precedings is a good one, but unfortunately they don't seem to want to take proposals at the moment. Equally I can publish my proposals (and Rosie Redfield does this regularly) but that isn't solving the generic problem.

WRT rating systems my feeling is that you need different systems for different purposes and any comprehensive system will be flawed for some uses. The interesting question I guess is whether the benefits of having a single system outweigh the problems associated with any particular single system?

Jean-Claude - been talking to a few editorial staff recently and they still seem to be uncomfortable (but not dismissive) with citing web pages. Certainly some referees are. The central concerns, as always, are stability, so WebCite is certainly at the very least a part answer to that. But we will certainly be doing it extensively in our next paper so we'll see how that works out.