Re : "I do not have permission to view photos"

[Yonak Hawkins]

I don't see any announcement. Where exactly can I read it ?

[David Bassett]

I don't see any announcement. Where exactly can I read it ?

In a announcement post at the very top of this, and every other forum I've checked, plus I saw it in the New Posts section when it was first posted.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Yonak,

simply click on any forum and at the top are announcements for that forum. The top most announcement on all the forums states as of May 2, 2019 Members will no longer be able to see images.

[Lee Schierer]

I don't see any announcement. Where exactly can I read it ?

Here is where you can read it (https://sawmillcreek.org/announcement.php?f=12&a=26) If you personally are having trouble viewing photos when logged in let us know

[Yonak Hawkins]

In a announcement post at the very top of this, and every other forum I've checked, plus I saw it in the New Posts section when it was first posted.

I've studied what's at the top of this page and I do not see it. Is it under a tab or something ?

[Yonak Hawkins]

Here is where you can read it (https://sawmillcreek.org/announcement.php?f=12&a=26) If you personally are having trouble viewing photos when logged in let us know

OK, for others, like me, who can't see the message referred to, here's what it says :

"On May 2nd we have removed Members privileges to view pictures."

..So, members now can't see images. Go figure . . .

[Gary Ragatz]

Yonak,

The announcement is near the top of the page when you're in one of the forums, but not when you're looking at a particular thread within a forum:

409295

[Pat Barry]

Keith, when are you going to fill us in on the subscription cost going forward and when will this happen? Thank you

[Keith Outten]

The cost of the new subscription service will remain 6 dollars per year. As long as enough people provide the necessary financial support it will not be increased. Any increase will not affect your current subscription until your next annual renewal. If I have to I will subsidize our costs from our SawMill Creek savings until it runs out of money which is about six months. For the record the majority of the people who are subscribing now are using PayPal and selecting the 2 dollars per month auto-subscription option and the numbers are growing every day.

The reason that we are making these changes in steps is because I don't have a means of spreading the word about the conversion to a subscription base system. I know this sounds impossible but the truth is that most people here go directly to the forum area they visit here and disregard everything else. They won't read Announcements, Private Messages and most won't read a thread that I create that concerns our services. I can mass email but I don't like that option and so many people have changed their email address along the way and not updated them here its kind of a useless way to communicate.

The announcements are at the top of every Main Forum Page. Go to the General Woodworking Forum, Turners Forum, Neanderthall Forum, etc and look at the top of the page. You can tell that a large number of people don't even know that we have Announcements :(

[Keith Outten]

In spite of the fact that these changes are not my fault I expect to take a lot of heat both here and in every other woodworking forum the Internet. Its already started on other forums but its nothing new...I have been beaten bloody many times before and called every nasty name you can imagine.

I just deleted three posts, thanks to everyone both pro and con for your comments they are always appreciated but please don't be unfriendly towards each other.

[Peter Christensen]

I've been a member for a couple years and don't dispute the value of the forum or the reasons for needing to charge a small fee to keep the place running. However every week or two SWMBO busts my chops about the amount of time I spend on the forums. If she found out I was paying even a small amount to be able to read a forum my days on them would be numbered :eek:. I've liked it here but I will be one of the ones that fades away.
All the best
Pete

[Doug Dawson]

I've been a member for a couple years and don't dispute the value of the forum or the reasons for needing to charge a small fee to keep the place running. However every week or two SWMBO busts my chops about the amount of time I spend on the forums. If she found out I was paying even a small amount to be able to read a forum my days on them would be numbered :eek:. I've liked it here but I will be one of the ones that fades away.


Maybe there should be an option for sending cash in the mail? :^)

[Jim Becker]

Maybe there should be an option for sending cash in the mail? :^)

There actually is...from the Donate Link above, scrolling down...



Donations via CheckPayPal will accept both checks and credit cards, and while we do prefer that you make use of our automated system for subscriptions, the slower alternative is always available. Please list your username in the Memo field of your check:

Make checks out to:

SawmillCreek Woodworker's Forums
8770 Little England Road
Hayes, VA 23072

[Jeff Bartley]

It's such a small sum of money it's funny that it's an issue. Peter, with all due respect, if you enjoy SMC just mail it in and you can continue participating, it's really that simple. Make something nice for your wife and tell her you learned it here!
You'll always catch more Bees with honey than vinegar!

[Wade Lippman]

And when does it convert completely?

[Doug Dawson]

It's such a small sum of money it's funny that it's an issue. Peter, with all due respect, if you enjoy SMC just mail it in and you can continue participating, it's really that simple. Make something nice for your wife and tell her you learned it here!
You'll always catch more Bees with honey than vinegar!

Oh, I forgot about the exchange rate. Peter's in (slightly higher in) Canada. Re cash, he'd have to sneak in to the Royal Bank branch and they charge you for the conversion as well, maybe there's a minimum. An International Money Order there for US$6 (drawn on a US bank) might be cheaper.

[Peter Christensen]

It's such a small sum of money it's funny that it's an issue. Peter, with all due respect, if you enjoy SMC just mail it in and you can continue participating, it's really that simple. Make something nice for your wife and tell her you learned it here!
You'll always catch more Bees with honey than vinegar!

Yup a glass of wine in a restaurant costs more but marital discord is not priceless. It isn't the amount, it's the principle. Other than a small pile of US change in the piggy bank I don't have any US to mail. All our accounts are joint and the boss is in them all so no hiding any transactions. The reasons might sound piddly but each person has to decide for themselves.

[John Helles]

Woodworking is very visual, so a WW forum is greatly diminished without pictures.

And forums, like any social media, have a network effect: the more users the more attractive they are - and vice versa. Once its a pay system, you risk loosing a big chunk of current users and choke off the stream of new users making it less attractive even for those who do pay. I don't see how a pay system will succeed given all the alternatives these days. Advertising is the key to social media; can't think of any pay sites.

Best of luck anyways.


P.S. On your Donate page your "Order" button should be bigger and colored, too easy to miss. Might help a little.

[Pat Barry]

I've been a member for a couple years and don't dispute the value of the forum or the reasons for needing to charge a small fee to keep the place running. However every week or two SWMBO busts my chops about the amount of time I spend on the forums. If she found out I was paying even a small amount to be able to read a forum my days on them would be numbered :eek:. I've liked it here but I will be one of the ones that fades away.
All the best
Pete

LOL. I feel you are taking that SWMBO thing way too seriously. $6, right?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Too many people don't know the difference between "excuses" and "reasons". Reasons have to be reasonable,excuses not so much.

[Larry Frank]

I feel sorry for someone if their wife busts their chops for reading a forum for a few minutes or spending a small amount of money.

It just sounds petty to me. Been married almost 50 years now and never let something this small be a source of a disagreement. There are too many important things to discuss. You do not bust your spouse's chops ever.

Maybe worst excuse ever for leaving a forum.

[Brian Elfert]

And forums, like any social media, have a network effect: the more users the more attractive they are - and vice versa. Once its a pay system, you risk loosing a big chunk of current users and choke off the stream of new users making it less attractive even for those who do pay. I don't see how a pay system will succeed given all the alternatives these days. Advertising is the key to social media; can't think of any pay sites.


Exactly. Forums with few posts tend to wither and die. A subscription fee will significantly decrease the number of posts. I go to new to me forums from time to time and often notice that the first page of posts goes back six months to a year or a year. Why would I bother signing up and posting when the chances of a reply are minimal? How many new members would sign up for something where they can't judge the number and quality of posts before forking over money?

I have been a contributor here for a number of years and it is the only forum I have ever spent money on.

[Peter Christensen]

I'm on a fixed income. Canada and Old Age Pensions. Two thirds of which covers property tax, house and our car insurances. The rest we hold in reserve to cover income tax and emergencies. My wife works and makes a reasonable income but we don't spend on too many luxuries and that will now include this forum. Where and what you choose to spend your money on is up to you. I shouldn't have posted anything because in my gut I didn't think the better off among you would understand but I did anyway. As I said earlier. All the best.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I'm on a fixed income. Canada and Old Age Pensions. Two thirds of which covers property tax, house and our car insurances. The rest we hold in reserve to cover income tax and emergencies. My wife works and makes a reasonable income but we don't spend on too many luxuries and that will now include this forum. Where and what you choose to spend your money on is up to you. I shouldn't have posted anything because in my gut I didn't think the better off among you would understand but I did anyway. As I said earlier. All the best.

Peter, my wife and I are both retired on fixed incomes. When we both worked, we were simply middle class wage earners. We weren't rich, by any means. We pay taxes, car insurance, house insurance, Medicare insurance, dental bills out of our pockets, eye glasses out of pocket, hearing aid out of pocket and manage to help some of our struggling adult grandchildren raising their young families. I paid more than $6 recently for the next 12 months contribution at SMC. Most people's internet access costs much more than $6 annually.

I will make a recommendation to you and everyone here at SMC. When SMC goes to a subscription based format, if you really don't think you gain $6 worth of information or camaraderie don't donate and don't participate.

But don't continue to disparage Keith, Jackie and the Moderators here because SMC is going to become subscription based. Keith and Jackie owe nobody anything for having provided SMC to the public for all these years. I personally believe too many people don't appreciate what the Outtens have endured, the personal attacks, the financial difficulties and the hours of behind the scene labor they have unselfishly and generously given.

[Wayne Lomman]

Those who have taken the p..s out of Peter for his reasons for not wanting to continue with the forum should be ashamed of yourselves. You don't know his personal circumstances and have obviously never been in the position of having to give up anything to keep yourself alive. You have now made him think twice about who his 'friends' are. Congratulations!

As a separate issue, after 3 years and a few posts or so, I will be leaving as well. Keith, I understand your position but it doesn't match my circumstances. I have given my advice for free but I won't on principle pay to give my advice. I didn't quite get the 4 year apprenticeship completed but that's life sometimes.

As a parting gift, here is Jimmy Barnes at his finest. This will be played at my funeral. You probably have to be Australian to know what he means when he refers to Uncle Sam. Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSJGrpfnOI

[Dave Lehnert]

Its a valid question. How many of us would be here NOW if we were not able to wonder in here for free years ago???? I would just have moved on to another forum. Today I know better and pay my dues each year.
But having said that. If the cost to keep the Creek open exceed the money coming in, what other choice is there?

Thanks to everyone who keeps the creek operating.

[Matt Day]

$6 is such a small petty amount of money for the knowledge you can get here. If you can’t afford $6 how can you afford your internet bill, and likely cable bill as well?

Maybe there should be a first year free kind of subscription? Get newbies hooked then require $6/yr.

Thanks for all you do Keith.

Edit: without the $6 from contributors, there’s likely need to be ads and banners all over the place, with everyone would complain about.

[Frederick Skelly]

As a separate issue, after 3 years and a few posts or so, I will be leaving as well.

Take care Wayne. I've appreciated your help and your posts.
Fred

[Wade Lippman]

But don't continue to disparage Keith, Jackie and the Moderators here because SMC is going to become subscription based. Keith and Jackie owe nobody anything for having provided SMC to the public for all these years. I personally believe too many people don't appreciate what the Outtens have endured, the personal attacks, the financial difficulties and the hours of behind the scene labor they have unselfishly and generously given.

I read Peter's copious posts over the last month and don't see where he disparaged anyone. Looks like he will be an asset where ever he winds up.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I couldn't even begin to attach a value to the education, friendship, or support that I've gotten through SMC, but it's obviously an amount absurdly greater than $6. So I'll contribute. But it does feel odd to pay for access to content that is actually generated for free by other users.

Reddit is an example of another online forum that relies on user-generated content, and they provide the hosting (actually, AWS provides their hosting...). They make money through ads (although presumably a large fraction of users have never seen them...adblockers), and while the size of their site is enormous, they're valued at $1.8B (yes - billion).

I hope this change isn't the end of SMC, but I certainly am worried. Especially with other forums being available that are functionally identical. I wonder if in this day and age, where a huge fraction of the internet is cloud-hosted on services like AWS, is it financially sound to host a site like SMC on a dedicated, physical server (presumably, this is where most of the cost comes from)? I apologize if it's impolite for me to ask, but I've never been very clear what the Contributor fees pay for, or how SMC's operations differ from other popular forums.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I read Peter's copious posts over the last month and don't see where he disparaged anyone. Looks like he will be an asset where ever he winds up.

Wade, I'd argue that publicly complaining about the upcoming subscription only format is disparaging. Peter is the one who brought up his personal situations. I only replied to that because I too am retired, on a fixed income and have financial obligations to meet. That's life. I find $6 annually a trivial amount and have a hard time believing most people who are woodworkers, have internet service and a computer to post, can't afford $6.

For the umpteenth time. Keith and Jackie have suffered enough financial hardships in the past for the benefit of SMC while contributing hundreds of hours behind the scenes to provide SMC for our benefit primarily. It's like being a dairy farmer. You can't get away from it because it's located a short distance from your home. I know. I visited them for a couple hours, a couple years ago .

Like Dan, I am ever indebted for what I have learned from those who post here, for the information I gained here at SMC. I hope that SMC is able survive as resource subscription based or otherwise for many years to come. I came to SMC from a manufacturer's forum where a couple of self anointed experts ruled the roost in an unkindly manner and if you were a "newby" (I hate that term) who asked a question you were publicly and verbally whipped. One guy said he was leaving, he'd found a forum where people were humane, kind, considerate, and an inexperienced woodworker could ask a question without enduring a public bashing. He mentioned the name SawMillCreek.org and I haven't been back to that manufacturer's forum since. The manner I built my shop was influenced by SMC members, the tools I have bought and placed in my shop were influenced by SMC members. The woodworking I do has been influenced by SMC members.

And yet...…. without SMC, the information would not have any value at all to anyone but the person who has the information in their head. If Keith says the income being generated won't support the website, then either revenue needs to increase or expenses decrease to keep the Creek from drying up. Again. I don't believe most people appreciate the amount of work, Keith, Jackie and Aaron have given to keep the Creek flowing in the past.

IMO, it's the civil attitude maintained by the TOSs and the Moderators here at SMC that allows the true value of the information of the members be enjoyed.

[Jeff Bartley]

Yup a glass of wine in a restaurant costs more but marital discord is not priceless. It isn't the amount, it's the principle. Other than a small pile of US change in the piggy bank I don't have any US to mail. All our accounts are joint and the boss is in them all so no hiding any transactions. The reasons might sound piddly but each person has to decide for themselves.

Peter,

My reply to you was an attempt to layout a senario in which your wife would place some value on your participation here thus eliminating any heat you'd receive from an annual contribution.

I was just making a suggestion that could possibly align your wife's interests with your own, a win-win in my book. Play your cards right and she might start buying lumber for you!

[Ronald Blue]

Everyone has to make their own decision on whether they consider it worth $6 to be part of this forum. The benefit I get far out weighs the small cost. Just in entertainment value alone. How many have Netflix? $12.99 per month. Do you use apple iCloud? .99 per month for it. Do you get coffee or pop at the gas station? Even every other month and you have spent more than the $6 a year. If you have never benefited from the Forum's or gotten any useful information then you are in the minority. I'm like Dan, I fear this site may feel to be here if we don't do our part.

[Pat Barry]

Yup a glass of wine in a restaurant costs more but marital discord is not priceless. It isn't the amount, it's the principle. Other than a small pile of US change in the piggy bank I don't have any US to mail. All our accounts are joint and the boss is in them all so no hiding any transactions. The reasons might sound piddly but each person has to decide for themselves.

It sounds like a pretty sad situation. Perhaps you could sell something to make a little cash, maybe a garage sale? Recently I went back to Centurylink and savedabout $40 per month by dropping home phone service and got faster internet to boot. I think if you look around there are ways to get more value for your $. Because of this site I rarely buy woodworking magazines and that saves me way more than $6 per year.

[John K Jordan]

Same, here, 49 years next month. I'm still learning, though and maybe one day I'll get better at it. :)

One thing we decided at the outset was not to let money be an issue. We each have our interests and joint and separate budgets and NEVER question the other on expenditures of money or time. When we run low we change our ways. We do discuss somethings in advance, like buying a new tractor or car or remodeling the house. :D

JKJ



I feel sorry for someone if their wife busts their chops for reading a forum for a few minutes or spending a small amount of money.

It just sounds petty to me. Been married almost 50 years now and never let something this small be a source of a disagreement. There are too many important things to discuss. You do not bust your spouse's chops ever.

Maybe worst excuse ever for leaving a forum.

[Frank Pratt]

I've been a member for a couple years and don't dispute the value of the forum or the reasons for needing to charge a small fee to keep the place running. However every week or two SWMBO busts my chops about the amount of time I spend on the forums. If she found out I was paying even a small amount to be able to read a forum my days on them would be numbered :eek:. I've liked it here but I will be one of the ones that fades away.
All the best
Pete

You're the one that brought it up, so I'm just gonna say that the above statement shows how badly you & the missus need to get some counciling.

[Lee DeRaud]

As a separate issue, after 3 years and a few posts or so, I will be leaving as well. Keith, I understand your position but it doesn't match my circumstances. I have given my advice for free but I won't on principle pay to give my advice.Amen to that.

I've always felt about forums like this the same way I feel about potluck dinners: if you can, you should bring more than you eat. But if the food isn't free, it becomes a restaurant instead of a gathering of friends.

[Keith Outten]

Lee, an interesting point but my budget will never be able to participate in a Pot-Luck dinner for over 1000 people which we average online here almost on a continuous basis.
All total we have between 40 to 60 thousand unique visitors per day here, most are unregistered but they consume resources and now that they are blocking our banner advertisements they are a constant overhead without any financial support. Most registered Members get involved in discussions here which is a valuable asset but when the numbers go down like they have its difficult to attract and maintain advertisers that have offset our costs to operate.

Unregistered Visitors have always been the source of funds to pay for Members free access here because they made advertising work.
.

[Sam Murdoch]

I guess there are some members who ONLY offer advice to others here on The Creek but never derive any benefit from advice given. In that case, such an individual(s) point is well taken. Why pay $6.00 to offer 2¢ :confused:

Never imagined it could be so one sided.

Sam

[Rod Sheridan]

Last week I accepted a generous offer from Jeff Bartley to visit his shop, meet his family and have dinner with them.

I'm Canadian so in all probability I would have never met Jeff without Sawmill Creek.

The same for Rich Riddell, another wonderful person who I had a visit with.

As for all my other wonderful virtual American friends on this forum, your virtual friendship has also been priceless.

For me the cost of SMC for a year is a cup of coffee in a coffee shop once per year, something I consider a real bargain.

As a motorcyclist, membership in a club is in the $60 dollar range per year, another bargain.

I understand that some people are opposed to paying on principle, I simply don't understand that however.

Hope it all works well for SMC...........Rod.

[Bruce Page]

Please keep this discussion friendly. There is no need for personal attacks.

Thank you

[Pat Barry]

By the way, this thread reminded me I was past due for my annual subscription. Just took care of that now. Sorry for the delay Keith.

[Karl Loeblein]

Keith, What's the best way to cover someone else's $6 fee when we donate? Should I select the $6 amount a 2nd time, but then list the other member's account name in PayPal?

Peter, Will you be sticking around if your fee was covered for the year?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

How much value does information it have if there is no place to post it as in the CREEK GOES DRY? Somebody has to pay the bills. NOTHING IS FREE.

[Peter Christensen]

Peter, Will you be sticking around if your fee was covered for the year?

Karl your offer is incredibly generous and much appreciated but no, I'll be moving on.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Ken, there are plenty of free sites to exchange information, ideas and enthusiasm about woodworking. I'd list some here but, the diffident rules would soon have them blocked.

I invite you to go to those sites then.

Speaking to nobody in particular. Keith and Jackie own SMC. Keith has made his decision. Continued public nagging, criticizing or whining about his decision is just harassment by those who don't have a dog in the fight, who take advantage of Keith and Jackie's good nature, generosity and then have the gall to criticize those who have been providing a free, largely unappreciated service. Go! Quickly! Quietly!

When I left the manufacturer's site, I left because I saw people (not me) being heckled, criticized and denigrated in public for asking seemingly innocent questions. The attacks weren't on me but frankly I don't and won't be aligned with uncivil and often profane behavior. I don't want to known for that type of behavior though after 4 years roughnecking on oil rigs and 8 years in the US Navy, I can handle my own under given circumstances. When I left that site, I didn't complain, whine or even notify the manufacturer's website I was leaving, I just walked away and came to SMC.

Too often I think people in today's world people think that having access to the internet and using "pseudonyms" (which at SMC in violation of the TOSs), gives them the right to have and use "keyboard bravado" to challenge, intimidate and insult others. They say things they wouldn't dare say to someone's face. I tire of seeing Keith being attacked for his decision. SMC is his business and it's his decision. Those that complain having nothing invested and would prefer that he continue in business until he has another business bankrupted by SMC? Absurd.

Get over it! SMC is just a woodworking website that is more civil than most because of the TOSs and Moderators. If SMC dries up tomorrow, I will greatly miss it. If it dries up tomorrow, the same callous jerks whining here today will be at other websites crying about the demise of SMC and typing their "I told you so!" without ever saying they don't understand because their information was "so valuable". Without a website, anything that might have been posted at this website is worth nothing! Your information doesn't pay the bills. That's the problem.

[Steve Clardy]

Keith, What's the best way to cover someone else's $6 fee when we donate? Should I select the $6 amount a 2nd time, but then list the other member's account name in PayPal?

Peter, Will you be sticking around if your fee was covered for the year?




Looks to me he is a Contributor. Look under his name.

[Jim Becker]

Keith, What's the best way to cover someone else's $6 fee when we donate? Should I select the $6 amount a 2nd time, but then list the other member's account name in PayPal?

Peter, Will you be sticking around if your fee was covered for the year?
Karl, make your own contribution first and once you get Contributor status and can use private messages, send Keith a message indicating that you want to gift a subscription to [insert name here]. You can then make the payment via the donate button or send a check to the address at the bottom of the Donate page. This is how I've done it over the years personally. Keith has to manually uplift the individual you want to help.

Jim
Forum Moderator

[Frederick Skelly]

Keith, What's the best way to cover someone else's $6 fee when we donate? Should I select the $6 amount a 2nd time, but then list the other member's account name in PayPal?

Peter, Will you be sticking around if your fee was covered for the year?

Karl: That was a classy and kind thing to do. Thank you for trying.
Peter: I'm sorry to see you move on. Take care and work safely.

Fred

[Mark Beall]

The announcements are at the top of every Main Forum Page. Go to the General Woodworking Forum, Turners Forum, Neanderthall Forum, etc and look at the top of the page. You can tell that a large number of people don't even know that we have Announcements :(

You’re right. I never see announcements. From the main page, I click on “New Posts” and then go to read stuff from there. Neither of those pages show announcements. I’d guess that a lot of people do the same.

[Matt Day]

You’re right. I never see announcements. From the main page, I click on “New Posts” and then go to read stuff from there. Neither of those pages show announcements. I’d guess that a lot of people do the same.

I’d guess not. I’d bet the way you view the site is likely not the way most do. By clicking “what’s new” you’ll get all recent posts in every forum. I don’t do any metal working (yet!) or laser stuff so I don’t need/want to see those posts.
I think most have their favorite sub-forums and browse those only. New posts go to the top of each forum.
Instead of clicking “new posts” choose any of the sub-forums like General Woodworking or Workshops or Off Topic. At the top of each page in yellow (mobile view) or blue (full site - desktop/tablet view) are the announcements.

[Mike Henderson]

I’d guess not. I’d bet the way you view the site is likely not the way most do. By clicking “what’s new” you’ll get all recent posts in every forum. I don’t do any metal working (yet!) or laser stuff so I don’t need/want to see those posts.
I think most have their favorite sub-forums and browse those only. New posts go to the top of each forum.
Instead of clicking “new posts” choose any of the sub-forums like General Woodworking or Workshops or Off Topic. At the top of each page in yellow (mobile view) or blue (full site - desktop/tablet view) are the announcements.

I'm one of those people who only views new posts. I have my URL set up to only give me new posts in forums I want. Here's the URL I use when I connect to SawMill Creek - www.sawmillcreek.org/search.php?do=getnew&include=3,4,7,10,12,16,23,29,39,40,43,44 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search.php?do=getnew&include=3,4,7,10,12,16,23,29,39,40,43,44)

Each forum has a number and you can select what forums you want to have new posts returned to you. Click on that URL and you'll see how it works.

Mike

[Frederick Skelly]

I'm one of those people who only views new posts. I have my URL set up to only give me new posts in forums I want. Here's the URL I use when I connect to SawMill Creek - www.sawmillcreek.org/search.php?do=getnew&include=3,4,7,10,12,16,23,29,39,40,43,44 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search.php?do=getnew&include=3,4,7,10,12,16,23,29,39,40,43,44)

Each forum has a number and you can select what forums you want to have new posts returned to you. Click on that URL and you'll see how it works.

Mike

I do something similar to Mike. I view only new posts, using the "new posts" button. I'll try out the URL approach to refine that a bit. Thanks Mike.

[Frederick Skelly]

I'm one of those people who only views new posts.

+1. I am too. I currently use the "new posts" button, but I'll try Mike's idea out.
Fred

[Matt Day]

Interesting. I guess I thought it would be too much to wade through, but if you can filter the results I suppose that works.

I prefer going through the sub-forums one by one and seeing the activity.

[John Terefenko]

So lets get this straight.If you are not a subscription payer you can not see photos any more?? But you can still post?? Can you post photos for others to see?? When will this become a full blown subscription paying forum??

[Keith Outten]

At least another month. That's how long it will most likely take for everyone to have visited and get the word that we are making changes.

[Frank Pratt]

I wonder what percentage of forum members use ad blockers. To my way of thinking, if you use an ad blocker, then you have no right to complain about subscription costs, or even if the site even closes down. I can't imagine that regular users would block the ads.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I wonder what percentage of forum members use ad blockers. To my way of thinking, if you use an ad blocker, then you have no right to complain about subscription costs, or even if the site even closes down. I can't imagine that regular users would block the ads.

Frank, I suspect it doesn't matter whether or not members use it. If the advertisers perceive that everyone as a matter of convenience are using adblockers, they won't advertise. Keith has already stated many times the amount of advertising dollars has decreased remarkably.

[Frank Pratt]

Frank, I suspect it doesn't matter whether or not members use it. If the advertisers perceive that everyone as a matter of convenience are using adblockers, they won't advertise. Keith has already stated many times the amount of advertising dollars has decreased remarkably.

Can advertisers tell if a blocker is used? I know very little about that end of the internet. Or any end for that matter.

[Robert A. Winter]

Let me get this clear in my mind. A six dollar donation gets access for a year, which seems reasonable enough but it seems the only method of paying is via PayPal. What is the reason for that?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Let me get this clear in my mind. A six dollar donation gets access for a year, which seems reasonable enough but it seems the only method of paying is via PayPal. What is the reason for that?

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see the name and address where you can mail a check. That's the way I donate.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Let me get this clear in my mind. A six dollar donation gets access for a year, which seems reasonable enough but it seems the only method of paying is via PayPal. What is the reason for that?

It's easy Frank. If I pay advertising dollars to SMC, SMC creates a link/hot button as part of the advertisement to my website. Once I start advertising at a website, if I don't get an increase in hits on my website, I know I am wasting my advertising dollars.

Every time you post, your post leaves your IP address with that post. The Moderators at SMC have the ability to see that IP address. There is free software available to tell someone where a given IP address is located. Thus even though you don't have your location listed in your personal data viewable by everyone, the Moderators can see you IP address and can locate the general area for which the IP address is assigned. My IP address shows I am in Lewiston, ID but I freely acknowledge that.

Any time you go to a website, you leave a record of you visit.

[Robert A. Winter]

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see the name and address where you can mail a check. That's the way I donate.
Seems a tad third world. I write maybe a dozen cheques a year. I can use PayPal although it is a long time since I have been on their site. I still have cash there left over from my eBay days. Never transferred it out because they want to nail me for exchange.

[Frank Pratt]

I write maybe a dozen cheques a year.

I remember writing cheques. But I bet I've only written 1 in the last dozen years :)

[Edwin Santos]

Robert,

If method of payment was really the only objection, I'm sure if you email the administrator he will find a solution that works for you.
IMO Paypal is about as mainstream as any other method of payment for online transactions. For those that might not know this, you can attach your credit card to your Paypal account as well as link it to your bank account. In this way Paypal becomes the same as using any credit card, or writing a check and in involves no additional cost to the sender of the funds (but it does for the recipient).

I'm not sure what other conventional options there might be.

BTW, I highly recommend using 2FA (two factor authentication) with Paypal, Ebay, Apple, Google, any sites through which you are transacting business. The use of 2FA raises the barrier for a hacker several orders of magnitude.

DISCLAIMER - I see you are from Canada. I *think* all of what I have said above is still valid, but I'm not 100% sure if there are differences in linking a CAD bank account or if it operates the same way as linking a US account.

Edwin

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Seems a tad third world. I write maybe a dozen cheques a year. I can use PayPal although it is a long time since I have been on their site. I still have cash there left over from my eBay days. Never transferred it out because they want to nail me for exchange.


I remember writing cheques. But I bet I've only written 1 in the last dozen years :)

To each their own. I prefer to write checks.

[Jim Becker]

Seems a tad third world. I write maybe a dozen cheques a year. I can use PayPal although it is a long time since I have been on their site. I still have cash there left over from my eBay days. Never transferred it out because they want to nail me for exchange.
You don't need a PayPal account to just pay a vendor with a credit card if you want to make your contribution without mailing a check. When you get to the PayPal "login screen", just use the link below the login to pay with a CC directly. PayPal is just the "clearing house" for the transaction. Of course, any CC you use might have a foreign exchange fee, although many do not these days.

[James Waldron]

About Peter:

He began by blaming his wife's aggravation at the time he spends on forums and his fear she would beat him up if he spent $6 per year for a forum.

When he saw responses that suggested marital counseling or divorce court and gently questioned his manhood, he changed his position.


He pleaded penury because his combination of government benefits and a pension left him on a fixed budget that couldn't be squeezed to get $6 per year, or $0.50 per month, or $0.0164383561643836 per day.

Oh, bad me! I didn't convert to CA$, so he would have to do that himself.
And then a number of other folks on fixed income poo-pood his argument; one Starbucks coffee would cover a year. Three Cokes or Pepsis would cover a year. And he had nothing to say.


Then, when another Contributor offered to pay for a year for him, he said thanks but no thanks, he's still moving on.


In my view, Peter was blowing smoke where it don't belong. So now we know: it wasn't about the money. It wasn't about his poverty. It wasn't his wife's fault. But we still don't know why he is leaving. It's very clear he doesn't value SMC -- even when it's free -- to stick around.

Since he's a Contributor, his position here has been quite strange. If he can't/won't afford $6 per year, how did he get to be a Contributor?

[Lee DeRaud]

When he saw responses that suggested marital counseling or divorce court and gently questioned his manhood, he changed his position.
…
But we still don't know why he is leaving.Well yeah, those are just the kind of responses that make a person feel wanted and welcome.

[Frederick Skelly]

Well yeah, those are just the kind of responses that make a person feel wanted and welcome.

+1. I was thinking the same as Lee. No offense intended to anyone, but we (the Community) were kinda hard on him.

[Frank Pratt]

+1. I was thinking the same as Lee. No offense intended to anyone, but we (the Community) were kinda hard on him.

Were we though? When a member posts about a problem or issue he's having, it is the role of other members to offer solutions. This being the off topic sub-forum, there is a wide range of subjects discussed. He had an issue; people responded with suggestions.

Speaking for myself, what he wrote seemed incomprehensible to me. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt & offered what I genuinely felt was an option that would help him. Reading his subsequent posts just gave me the impression that he was just trying to... I don't know what.

I thought a number of other replies to his posts were incredulous, but not mean spirited.

[Frederick Skelly]

Were we though? When a member posts about a problem or issue he's having, it is the role of other members to offer solutions. This being the off topic sub-forum, there is a wide range of subjects discussed. He had an issue; people responded with suggestions.

Speaking for myself, what he wrote seemed incomprehensible to me. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt & offered what I genuinely felt was an option that would help him. Reading his subsequent posts just gave me the impression that he was just trying to... I don't know what.

I thought a number of other replies to his posts were incredulous, but not mean spirited.


I dont think anyone was trying to be mean spirited either, Frank. I just felt bad for the guy. Maybe I'm a little more more "touchy" than other people though. FWIW, I'm guessing Peter became a contributor because some kind soul sent Keith a donation in his name.

Have a good one.
Fred

[Dave Lehnert]

You don't need a PayPal account to just pay a vendor with a credit card if you want to make your contribution without mailing a check. When you get to the PayPal "login screen", just use the link below the login to pay with a CC directly. PayPal is just the "clearing house" for the transaction. Of course, any CC you use might have a foreign exchange fee, although many do not these days.




What Jim said.

I don't use or know anything about payPal. When paying my dues for SMC it is just like paying for anything on the web with a credit card. Guess PayPal is just the one who processes it.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong. But would seem best to pay with PayPal. Keep Keith from having to open mail, deposit checks etc.. For SMC I would guess that could turn into a full time job.

[Stewie Simpson]

Were we though? When a member posts about a problem or issue he's having, it is the role of other members to offer solutions. This being the off topic sub-forum, there is a wide range of subjects discussed. He had an issue; people responded with suggestions.

Speaking for myself, what he wrote seemed incomprehensible to me. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt & offered what I genuinely felt was an option that would help him. Reading his subsequent posts just gave me the impression that he was just trying to... I don't know what.

I thought a number of other replies to his posts were incredulous, but not mean spirited.

Oh come on Frank. What planet are you living on.

I don't have an issue with encouraging the membership to become a paid contributor, but there needs be a line drawn in the sand on how far that discussion is allowed to progress.



About Peter:


He began by blaming his wife's aggravation at the time he spends on forums and his fear she would beat him up if he spent $6 per year for a forum.

When he saw responses that suggested marital counseling or divorce court and gently questioned his manhood, he changed his position.


He pleaded penury because his combination of government benefits and a pension left him on a fixed budget that couldn't be squeezed to get $6 per year, or $0.50 per month, or $0.0164383561643836 per day.

Oh, bad me! I didn't convert to CA$, so he would have to do that himself.
And then a number of other folks on fixed income poo-pood his argument; one Starbucks coffee would cover a year. Three Cokes or Pepsis would cover a year. And he had nothing to say.


Then, when another Contributor offered to pay for a year for him, he said thanks but no thanks, he's still moving on.



In my view, Peter was blowing smoke where it don't belong. So now we know: it wasn't about the money. It wasn't about his poverty. It wasn't his wife's fault. But we still don't know why he is leaving. It's very clear he doesn't value SMC -- even when it's free -- to stick around.

Since he's a Contributor, his position here has been quite strange. If he can't/won't afford $6 per year, how did he get to be a Contributor?

[Mark Daily]

Considering the large amount of information available here and the vast range of members experience, I think $6/ year is very reasonable. It costs money to make this site happen not to mention a lot of hard work being put in behind the scenes.

My thanks to all of you who keep this site running!

[John K Jordan]

...
Someone correct me if i'm wrong. But would seem best to pay with PayPal. Keep Keith from having to open mail, deposit checks etc.. For SMC I would guess that could turn into a full time job.

I like the PayPay option and use it to contribute - I signed up for the recurring monthly contribution so I won't forget to renew next year. Like using PayPal for anything, I get an email for every transaction making it easy to monitor.

JKJ

[Frank Pratt]

Oh come on Frank. What planet are you living on.

I don't have an issue with encouraging the membership to become a paid contributor, but there needs be a line drawn in the sand on how far that discussion is allowed to progress.


My comments applied to, as i said in my post "a number of other replies". That doesn't mean all of them. While I think James Waldron made valid assessment, I agree that something that harsh should not have been posted here.

But let's circle back to your question to me: "Oh come on Frank. What planet are you living on" You are chastising me for something I didn't actually do with an insulting comment. Please, let's keep things a little more civil.

[Keith Outten]

Just so you guys know how much things have changed in just the last twelve months........

One year ago our banner views were between 15 to 17 million per month.
Today we are averaging 44,000 per month.
We know exactly what our stats are and so does everyone else who is hosting on the Internet.

Advertising blockers will ultimately force unimaginable changes to the Internet. Not just here, it will happen everywhere that services have been traditionally provided for free. I'm honest and admit the numbers have fallen into the basement. Other organizations are hiding the effects as long as they can to protect their financial interests. Don't believe me, look at what happened to Photo-Bucket. Chances are every one of you know someone who left Photo-Bucket when they stopped providing free picture hosting. Millions of pictures disappeared overnight at forums everywhere when Photo-Bucket stopped their free hosting service. They were hosting pictures for free because the pictures sold advertising banners. Ya cut off your nose to spite your own face folks, but that's where we are at now. Wait For It.......

[Frank Pratt]

Keith, I agree that we're going to see some major changes in the 'free content' arena and the root of it is people using ad blockers. The problem is that most are not cognisant of just what is paying for that content. I think a large part of the blame lies at the feet of tech writers that review and recommend ad blockers without include a paragraph explaining just what roll ads play in the ecosystem.

I'll single out Steve Bass, a former writer for PC World (and a very good one at that) who used to regularly talk about what ad blocking program he used & how gleeful he was for not having view advertisements. Well, thanks a bunch Steve. Look where we're heading now. But he is by no means the only guilty party here.

And then there are those that declare that all knowledge must be freely accessible with no cost or barriers to access. What a ridiculous & naive notion that is.

End rant.

[Wes Mitchell]

Keith, I agree that we're going to see some major changes in the 'free content' arena and the root of it is people using ad blockers. The problem is that most are not cognisant of just what is paying for that content. I think a large part of the blame lies at the feet of tech writers that review and recommend ad blockers without include a paragraph explaining just what roll ads play in the ecosystem.

I'll single out Steve Bass, a former writer for PC World (and a very good one at that) who used to regularly talk about what ad blocking program he used & how gleeful he was for not having view advertisements. Well, thanks a bunch Steve. Look where we're heading now. But he is by no means the only guilty party here.

And then there are those that declare that all knowledge must be freely accessible with no cost or barriers to access. What a ridiculous & naive notion that is.

End rant.

I think it's just as much the fault of websites that were irresponsible in how they included advertisements. It was always very unobtrusive on SMC, but some sites go so overboard. Specifically with mobile sites, I can't tell you how many times I'd be scrolling down a page, and there were so many ads that they were still loading. When I tried to click something, the site would bounce (because ads were still loading) and I'd end up clicking an ad that wasn't there a minute ago. Issues like these are why people moved towards ad blockers.

[Art Mann]

The last time I was at a craft show, every small time operator there had the ability to accept credit cards directly. I would be a lot more quick to pay the $6 if I were able to pay SMC that way. I do not like Paypal as a company and I don't write checks any more.

[Stewie Simpson]

I think it's just as much the fault of websites that were irresponsible in how they included advertisements. It was always very unobtrusive on SMC, but some sites go so overboard. Specifically with mobile sites, I can't tell you how many times I'd be scrolling down a page, and there were so many ads that they were still loading. When I tried to click something, the site would bounce (because ads were still loading) and I'd end up clicking an ad that wasn't there a minute ago. Issues like these are why people moved towards ad blockers.

+1 in agreement.

[Tim Wolf]

The last time I was at a craft show, every small time operator there had the ability to accept credit cards directly. I would be a lot more quick to pay the $6 if I were able to pay SMC that way. I do not like Paypal as a company and I don't write checks any more.


Paypal is no less direct than Square, which is how most of those small time operators accept credit cards... whose board of directors has old PayPal execs on it ;)

[Frank Pratt]

I think it's just as much the fault of websites that were irresponsible in how they included advertisements. It was always very unobtrusive on SMC, but some sites go so overboard. Specifically with mobile sites, I can't tell you how many times I'd be scrolling down a page, and there were so many ads that they were still loading. When I tried to click something, the site would bounce (because ads were still loading) and I'd end up clicking an ad that wasn't there a minute ago. Issues like these are why people moved towards ad blockers.

Agreed. With responsible ad placement we would'nt have near the problem we do.

[Jim Becker]

The last time I was at a craft show, every small time operator there had the ability to accept credit cards directly. I would be a lot more quick to pay the $6 if I were able to pay SMC that way. I do not like Paypal as a company and I don't write checks any more.
As has been noted, you do not need a PayPal account to pay the contribution to SMC...on the Donate page, click through until it gets to the PayPal login pop-up. Below the login is another link to simply pay by credit card. PayPal is merely the processor just like other processors for the transaction. All of the small businesses at the craft shows are using a card processor for the transaction and some of them are using PayPal's system, just as others are using Intuit or ETSY or Square, etc., depending on where they acquired their reader from and where they chose to do their business.

[Mike Henderson]

I think it's just as much the fault of websites that were irresponsible in how they included advertisements. It was always very unobtrusive on SMC, but some sites go so overboard. Specifically with mobile sites, I can't tell you how many times I'd be scrolling down a page, and there were so many ads that they were still loading. When I tried to click something, the site would bounce (because ads were still loading) and I'd end up clicking an ad that wasn't there a minute ago. Issues like these are why people moved towards ad blockers.

I very much agree. I finally went to an ad-blocker when a site I visit regularly started doing an ad that essentially filled the screen for 10 seconds before minimizing to the top of the page. Really irritating. I'm sure the sales people were telling the advertiser "We'll make sure people view your ad."

Mike

[Art Mann]

I am quite certain that Paypal didn't process the transaction for free. I hate the thought of giving the company even a few cents.


As has been noted, you do not need a PayPal account to pay the contribution to SMC...on the Donate page, click through until it gets to the PayPal login pop-up. Below the login is another link to simply pay by credit card. PayPal is merely the processor just like other processors for the transaction. All of the small businesses at the craft shows are using a card processor for the transaction and some of them are using PayPal's system, just as others are using Intuit or ETSY or Square, etc., depending on where they acquired their reader from and where they chose to do their business.

[Jim Becker]

I am quite certain that Paypal didn't process the transaction for free. I hate the thought of giving the company even a few cents.

I understand that...but maintaining multiple processors for a small business is a bit inconvenient and sometimes costly. You've probably actually given them a few cents from time to time without even knowing it!

[Malcolm McLeod]

I write virtually no checks either (1 or 2/yr, maybe?), and yet I issue a lot of them.

My bank offers a payment service on their website. I just logon tell them who, where, how much, and when to deliver >> hit send. Save the Payee if I'll use them again. I'm done and no fees, not even postage. Bank prints a check and mails it. I can even do the same from my phone. Many large check receivers, like electric utility, have agreements with banks to electronically process it, so a paper check is never even cut as I understand it - - and the float is same day or at worst overnight, just tell the service the due date.

No free lunch - the semi-hidden cost is that the bank deducts the funds from the account as soon as the check issues - not when it clears. Result is that I lose the 3-5 days of float that a paper check in transit with the USPS would normally have. I don't play any 'float games', and it is a non-interest bearing, cash flow account with a low balance, so lost interest is minimal. Just remembering to buy stamps is a PITA, so convenience is worth it to me.

I won't mention any bank in particular. I've found them to be just as polarizing as politics & religion.

[Charlie Velasquez]

.... However every week or two SWMBO busts my chops about the amount of time I spend on the forums. If she found out I was paying even a small amount to be able to read a forum my days on them would be numbered :eek:. I've liked it here but I will be one of the ones that fades away.
All the best
Pete

Peter, if you’re still reading, I feel your pain. Not recently, but starting in the late 80’s I was enthralled with the idea that I could tap into the thoughts of thousands of people at once. Starting with Bulletin Boards on Compuserve via our school district’s internet access, to America Online via my own personal Supra14400 modem, I joined as many educator and educational technology listservs, bbs, and education AOL chats as I could find. Hours a week... many hours. And I have to admit, a lot of household maintenance tasks got pushed aside.

My wife was not pleased, no matter how much I tried to make her understand that I was able to get free advice in educational techniques from educators leading the way in their respective fields. I had to resort to reading threads and messages from 3-5 am while she was sleeping.

That phase of my life has subsided some, but not completely. I have dropped all the education ones, but have stayed on the self-help, diy, trades forums. I still read and am active in a couple of woodworking forums, a welding one, electrical one, and a general home repair one.

My my wife no longer complains, as my time on the forums is less than her time reading novels and posting to Facebook. But for a while it was a serious issue.

[Pat Barry]

Just so you guys know how much things have changed in just the last twelve months........

One year ago our banner views were between 15 to 17 million per month.
Today we are averaging 44,000 per month.
We know exactly what our stats are and so does everyone else who is hosting on the Internet.

Advertising blockers will ultimately force unimaginable changes to the Internet. Not just here, it will happen everywhere that services have been traditionally provided for free. I'm honest and admit the numbers have fallen into the basement. Other organizations are hiding the effects as long as they can to protect their financial interests. Don't believe me, look at what happened to Photo-Bucket. Chances are every one of you know someone who left Photo-Bucket when they stopped providing free picture hosting. Millions of pictures disappeared overnight at forums everywhere when Photo-Bucket stopped their free hosting service. They were hosting pictures for free because the pictures sold advertising banners. Ya cut off your nose to spite your own face folks, but that's where we are at now. Wait For It.......

Keith, just now the site statistics showed 78 members and 1337 guests. It didn't say how many were subscribers but I assume they are a subset of members. Lets assume all tje members will become subscribers. At $6 per year per subscriber it doesn't make any sense as to how you will cover costs. Also, what becomes of all the guests? Also, the statistics say most all time was 6054 users and I bet that maybe only 1/3 of those were members. To get 15 million banner views per month seems very ambitious with the number of users. Are you sure the site statistics are being reported properly? Finally, what about the new site software? Its been over a year since that discussion. As I recall your nephew was too busy with another job to work on implementation.

[James Waldron]

I am quite certain that Paypal didn't process the transaction for free. I hate the thought of giving the company even a few cents.

If you pay with a credit card, some processor collects a fee for the transaction. There are no credit card transactions without a transaction processor, whether that's PayPal or someone else. And the fees are pretty competitive and unavoidable.

Like you, I don't like PayPal. I don't like any of the processors. But I need to do business with my cards, so I need them. PayPal have the advantage of not having your credit card number pass through the hands of your vendor. Only PayPal has your number and you don't have to type it in for every transaction if you use their service. (If you use them as a direct credit card processor, you do have to type your number in, and but it's not going to your vendors all over the place.) And PayPal has a pretty good security system, so you avoid a slew of potential problems with multiple vendor systems of unknown security.

[Lee DeRaud]

Keith, just now the site statistics showed 78 members and 1337 guests. It didn't say how many were subscribers but I assume they are a subset of members. Lets assume all tje members will become subscribers. At $6 per year per subscriber it doesn't make any sense as to how you will cover costs. Also, what becomes of all the guests? Also, the statistics say most all time was 6054 users and I bet that maybe only 1/3 of those were members. To get 15 million banner views per month seems very ambitious with the number of users.Not unreasonable at all. Every time a member or guests switches forums, switches threads, switches to a new page on a long thread, submits a post etc, it brings up a new page with a new banner ad and clicks the counter. And 15M page views per month is only 500K per day, or about 6 per second. For the current 1400 or so viewers, that actually sounds low: on average it means they're staying on each page for several minutes.

Unless of course, an ad blocker keeps the banner ad from coming up with the new page.

[Brian Elfert]

I think it's just as much the fault of websites that were irresponsible in how they included advertisements. It was always very unobtrusive on SMC, but some sites go so overboard. Specifically with mobile sites, I can't tell you how many times I'd be scrolling down a page, and there were so many ads that they were still loading. When I tried to click something, the site would bounce (because ads were still loading) and I'd end up clicking an ad that wasn't there a minute ago. Issues like these are why people moved towards ad blockers.

My employer about 10 years ago was filling essentially every bit of white space on our website with ads. A new head of our website was hired and one of the first things he did was to remove a lot of the ads. He said we could charge more for the remaining ads and make more money due to less competition for the user's eyes.

Mind you, the volume of ads was nowhere near what a lot of the websites that exist mostly to sell ads have today. They were also real ads for real services, and not ads for other sketchy websites with outrageous headlines.

[Lee DeRaud]

Lets assume all tje members will become subscribers. At $6 per year per subscriber it doesn't make any sense as to how you will cover costs.You do realize that the total membership is pushing 120K, right? At $6 each...I think that would keep the lights on.

[Karl Loeblein]

Just so you guys know how much things have changed in just the last twelve months........

One year ago our banner views were between 15 to 17 million per month.
Today we are averaging 44,000 per month.
We know exactly what our stats are and so does everyone else who is hosting on the Internet....


Keith, Have you considered only locking down pics until enough donations come in to cover your yearly operating cost? Those of us who want pics soonest (or get the most out of SMC) can make a donation, and all the others can simply wait until enough donations have been given in order to start seeing pics again.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

You do realize that the total membership is pushing 120K, right? At $6 each...I think that would keep the lights on.

Lee, I have no doubt you are correct! LOL!

[Patrick Walsh]

Man if there are 120k members how may contribute. I would sure as hell think enough to not warrant cutting those whom don’t contribute off from viewing the full content.

I know when the for sale forum changed to having to be a contributor to post I contributed. Seems like a no brained at $6.

I just can’t see of 120k members their not being enough contributors to cover the cost of those whom don’t contribute..

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Man if there are 120k members how may contribute. I would sure as hell think enough to not warrant cutting those whom don’t contribute off from viewing the full content.

I know when the for sale forum changed to having to be a contributor to post I contributed. Seems like a no brained at $6.

I just can’t see of 120k members their not being enough contributors to cover the cost of those whom don’t contribute..

Patrick, IIRC, Keith has stated less than 1% donate annually. That wouldn't pay the costs IMO.
And, the 118,000 members aren't all active.

[Frederick Skelly]

Man if there are 120k members how may contribute. I would sure as hell think enough to not warrant cutting those whom don’t contribute off from viewing the full content.

I know when the for sale forum changed to having to be a contributor to post I contributed. Seems like a no brained at $6.

I just can’t see of 120k members their not being enough contributors to cover the cost of those whom don’t contribute..

Patrick, I dont know what the numbers look like but from his ongoing series of posts over the last year, it sure sounds to me like Keith has looked at this frontwards and backwards. For whatever reason, it aint as easy to solve as it might appear. Just my thoughts, anyway.
Fred

[Patrick Walsh]

I meant no disrespect and I assume whomever is not trying to rake anyone over the coals or anything like that.

The only thoughts I was trying to express was that I would be shocked to hear “and now I have” that so few contribute..

[Lee DeRaud]

And, the 118,000 members aren't all active.Yeah, you could probably use the number of members who have posted in the last 6-12 months as a first approximation to "active". I glanced at the 'Member List', hoping it had a column for last-post date, but no such luck, just join-date.

And that sort of brings up one point that I'm not completely sure has been considered: new members. Woodworking is a rather visual hobby, and if guests can't view photos, I'd expect the join rate to drop dramatically. There probably needs to be some sort of 'first month free' deal, because asking people to pay to see enough to decide whether they want to join ain't gonna fly.

[David L Morse]

Yeah, you could probably use the number of members who have posted in the last 6-12 months as a first approximation to "active". I glanced at the 'Member List', hoping it had a column for last-post date, but no such luck, just join-date...

There's a "Search Members" link upper right on the members list. It includes an advanced search option that lets you do that.

A bit under 4000 people have at least one post in the last year. A quick sample shows approximately a quarter of those are contributors.

[Lee DeRaud]

There's a "Search Members" link upper right on the members list. It includes an advanced search option that lets you do that.Cool, thanks. I thought I remembered there being such a function, just didn't drill down hard enough.

A bit under 4000 people have at least one post in the last year. A quick sample shows approximately a quarter of those are contributors.Ok, I was guessing something more like 10% active with about 10% of those contributors. Either way works out pretty close to Keith's 1% figure.

That's ~$6-$7K per year, which, as Ken said, sounds insufficient. So the question is, is $24K/year enough?

[Dan Friedrichs]

It seems like ad-blockers have had a huge negative impact on SMC. Yet, in some of the other forums/sites I visit, I notice prominent ad placement that isn't filtered by my ad-blocker (one example (https://www.physicianonfire.com/coming-clean/)). Other sites (including Canadian Woodworking), have a pop-up that requires you to disable your ad-blocker before visiting. Are those not realistic options for restoring the lost ad revenue? (I genuinely have no idea)

I read several FIRE (Financial Independence / Retire Early) blogs/forums that are fairly transparent about their ability to produce 5- or 6-figures of advertising revenue per year. As Lee alluded to, the $6/member fee seems like it would be peanuts compared to that.

[Yonak Hawkins]

Are those realistic options for restoring the lost ad revenue?

Why not ? They couldn't be more counter-productive or aggravating than blocking potential new contributors from viewing pictures.

[dennis thompson]

I know I'm going to be seen as an old grouch, and I won't argue with that, but I've never seen so much fire and fury over $6 per year.

[Keith Outten]

Lets say that we did implement a pop-up that required you to disable your ad-blocker. Then a couple months later the ad-blocking software is revised to block the pop-up, then we used another tactic and then the ad-blocker is revised again......and on and on. I am not going to play games and waste my time and energy fighting a battle I know I cannot win. People want to block advertising and they are going to do it because someone will always produce the software people want.

You receive updated ad-blocking features every time you upgrade your browser, its not that easy for forum owners. Last but not least I don't really care what other forum owners do or don't do. My goal to make the majority here happy and provide a friendly place for woodworkers to share and communicate.

[Pat Barry]

Lets say that we did implement a pop-up that required you to disable your ad-blocker. Then a couple months later the ad-blocking software is revised to block the pop-up, then we used another tactic and then the ad-blocker is revised again......and on and on. I am not going to play games and waste my time and energy fighting a battle I know I cannot win. People want to block advertising and they are going to do it because someone will always produce the software people want.

You receive updated ad-blocking features every time you upgrade your browser, its not that easy for forum owners. Last but not least I don't really care what other forum owners do or don't do. My goal to make the majority here happy and provide a friendly place for woodworkers to share and communicate.

At the top of every page I see an ad but thats the only one I see. Are there more ads I'm not seeing, because these are about the least innocuous ads that exist. Are they the ones being blocked? How much lost revenue due to ad blockers? Which users are responsible?

[Barry McFadden]

I know I'm going to be seen as an old grouch, and I won't argue with that, but I've never seen so much fire and fury over $6 per year.

I agree Dennis....this topic has been beat to death.... either you pay and stay or don't and go...simple....

[Yonak Hawkins]

I've never seen so much fire and fury over $6 per year.

The $6 is hardly the issue. The issue is blocking content from potential new donors. How could someone know if they want to join or not if they can’t see the benefit .. if they can’t see the beautiful woodwork and instructional photos shared here ?

[John Terefenko]

It is not just the $6 here. What if you belong to 5 or 6 more favorite forums?? The donations and fees do add up. I believe this site is too big. There is way too many subforums. This site site got to this point somehow and yes times change. But one thing has not changed with time is the posters. There is always a a certain core group that follow a forum and then there is the occasional contributor. Those numbers you guys throw around are so misleading for member counts. This happens on all forums. If the site was streamlined more I bet it would not cost so much to run. If you held donation events or even have the ads limited would bring in revenue. I never implemented an add blocker and the only ad I see is at the top of the page. Have no problem with some ads to navigate through.

Dead horse syndrome, maybe but if you are going to do it then do it already and be done with it. Do not do a partial thing like blocking photos only that is kid stuff. Whoever owns the rights to the site implement what you think is best. But remember it is a 2 way street. There is no site without you but also there is no site without members.

[Andrew Hughes]

I never did like the idea of anyone in the world viewing my woodworking for free. Giving away free words is one thing but a picture is worth a thousand more.
I can appreciate others work so much the best way to give back is sharing my work.
It’s a better place when there’s contributors taking and giving.
Still no free lunch.

[John K Jordan]

... but a picture is worth a thousand more.


Ha, every time I see that phrase I can't help but think about what I heard a guy say once: If a picture is worth a thousand words that must mean a word is worth a milli-picture. :)

I really enjoy this and other wood forums where so many people seem eager to share rather than just take - I've learned a lot.

[Lee DeRaud]

Giving away free words is one thing but a picture is worth a thousand more.At the speed I type, words are expensive and pictures might as well be free.

[Harold Balzonia]

It seems like ad-blockers have had a huge negative impact on SMC. Yet, in some of the other forums/sites I visit, I notice prominent ad placement that isn't filtered by my ad-blocker (one example (https://www.physicianonfire.com/coming-clean/)). Other sites (including Canadian Woodworking), have a pop-up that requires you to disable your ad-blocker before visiting. Are those not realistic options for restoring the lost ad revenue? (I genuinely have no idea).

This is the best idea I’ve read on this (and every other thread) on this subject. A simple disclaimer that “this is how we pay the bills, please opt in for the banner ads” is exactly what should be done to keep this site as is.

Ownership here has already made up their collective minds on what they are going to do, and they aren’t going to reverse course now. But keeping a step ahead of the ad blockers seems like a pretty easy task given the alternatives.... heck, with all the money coming in from the ads, they could hire a high school or college kid part time to keep ahead of it.

i can’t help but think management is looking to downsize SMC considerably. I’m sure this site takes a lot of time and energy to oversee and my guess is, it’s getting to be too much. Nothing wrong with that. The admission from Kieth that he “doesn’t care what other forum owners do” tells us all what we need to know. Maybe if he did care and investigated things a little more to see how others are handling this situation, a better solution would have popped up.

As it is, the “opt in” to see banner ads seems like a perfect solution.

[Jim Becker]

As it is, the “opt in” to see banner ads seems like a perfect solution.
Opt-in already exists for Contributors.

[glenn bradley]

OK, now I want a refund on my outrageous $6 PER YEAR membership for the 10 minutes I wasted on this thread :D:D:D. Seriously, that's less than a beer at the ball game let alone parking :). You'll have to forgive me. In SoCal where a coffee is a few bucks and parking is $25, we have a distorted sense of the dollar :(

[Harold Balzonia]

Which is 10% of the site’s population? And what percentage of contributors choose to opt in at this point? Not many, I would opine.... if they pay $6, why would they also look at ads....? the $6 should eliminate all the ads.

Let people choose.... see the ads and view/participate for free.... or pay $6 and see no ads and get other benefits (like access to post on classifieds (which is a nice perk!)

Force everyone to who wants to visit for free to opt in to ads.... seems like problem solved.

Unless the goal is to shrink the size of SMC, which is fine, if that’s what the goal actually is.... Maybe SMC is too unruly at this point for Keith and most people on here would prefer to only interact with like minded people willing to pay for a forum. So be it, if that’s the new business model, and let the market decide if SMC survives.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Lets say that we did implement a pop-up that required you to disable your ad-blocker. Then a couple months later the ad-blocking software is revised to block the pop-up, then we used another tactic and then the ad-blocker is revised again......and on and on. I am not going to play games and waste my time and energy fighting a battle I know I cannot win. People want to block advertising and they are going to do it because someone will always produce the software people want.

You receive updated ad-blocking features every time you upgrade your browser, its not that easy for forum owners. Last but not least I don't really care what other forum owners do or don't do. My goal to make the majority here happy and provide a friendly place for woodworkers to share and communicate.


Which is 10% of the site’s population? And what percentage of contributors choose to opt in at this point? Not many, I would opine.... if they pay $6, why would they also look at ads....? the $6 should eliminate all the ads.

Let people choose.... see the ads and view/participate for free.... or pay $6 and see no ads and get other benefits (like access to post on classifieds (which is a nice perk!)

Force everyone to who wants to visit for free to opt in to ads.... seems like problem solved.

Unless the goal is to shrink the size of SMC, which is fine, if that’s what the goal actually is.... Maybe SMC is too unruly at this point for Keith and most people on here would prefer to only interact with like minded people willing to pay for a forum. So be it, if that’s the new business model, and let the market decide if SMC survives.

Harold,

Read Keith's earlier post. Maybe what he wants is a permanent fix rather one that has to change as the new ad-blocking software is developed that transcends the "Opt-in" option. Believe me, if there isn't software available to do that now, it's under development I'm sure.

[Harold Balzonia]

I understand, Ken.... Just as there is software constantly being developed to stay ahead of the blockers....

As I said in my original reply to this thread (#117), with the additional revenue being recouped by banner ads, SMC could hire a part time high school kid or college student to keep ahead of the blockers. Clearly the ad people are always one step ahead of the blockers so hire out one kid who can do it.... now that I think about it, there’s probably a dozen members right here on SMC who would do it pro bono.... what’s the harm in asking?

unless, the goal is shrinkage.... (insert Seinfeld joke here...) of the site. Which is ownership’s prerogative, and the market will decide in the end.

[Jim Becker]

So, Harold...you've been a member since 2014. Why not become a subscriber yourself? What's kept you from that? Six. Bucks.

[Matt Day]

I do agree that $6 is not worth all this fuss, for those of us that know how valuable this forum is.

But for the newbie who hasn’t gotten to see the value, is he/she supposed to shell out $6 just to see? I think there should be a trial period where new users can see pictures for free, then after X months or whatever they have to pay up.

[Harold Balzonia]

So, Harold...you've been a member since 2014. Why not become a subscriber yourself? What's kept you from that? Six. Bucks.

How did I know this was coming?

Same reason IÂ’ve never given a dime to Wikipedia, Firefox/mozilla, or craigslist.... itÂ’s simply not worth it, to me. I donÂ’t pay for websites. ItÂ’s just something I wonÂ’t do. I wonÂ’t pay for newspaper articles, or fantasy football pages. If a website is behind a pay wall, or requires a subscription, IÂ’m out.

Honestly, my $6 isnÂ’t going to do diddly for this website. And since I have no idea how much money is actually needed to keep things afloat, IÂ’m not inclined to give. If there was a fundraiser where a set dollar amount was transparently shown (we need X dollars for bandwidth, x dollars for servers, x dollars for hard drives, or whatever), IÂ’d be very likely to donate. And a lot more than $6.... Fact is, I like transparency in my charitable donations. Same reason I donÂ’t give money to my kidsÂ’ school.... I buy them equipment. They need a basketball hoop or a new projector in the science lab, I buy it for them. I wonÂ’t just send a check to the school district.

Back to the topic at hand, I havenÂ’t heard a compelling or logical argument against having non-contributors forced to opt in to banner ads and $6 contributors getting access with no ads plus other perks. This is the ultimate win-win solution... but it wonÂ’t be attempted, obviously.

My guess is that this site has just outgrown its leadership and the massive reduction in size thatÂ’s coming is actually the ultimate goal. A self-selective, paying membership with significantly fewer people means a lot less overhead and a lot less work. A lot less moderation will be needed, as well.

[Dan Friedrichs]

+1, Harold...

I understand SMC has been a labor of love, and if the work has outgrown the interest, I'm sure no one has anything other than gratitude for the years of work that has gone into it. But watching it die (which I think will be the outcome) is sad, in much the same way that watching an old tree die is sad.

It seems like several folks believe $6 is the solution. I'm frustrated with that view, because it seems so obviously contrary to logic. Even at 10k paying members, $60k or even $100k/yr in revenue is peanuts. There are mommy blogs that make that kind of money.

I understand not wanting to play wack-a-mole with new adblock tech, or having to innovate new revenue streams, if the ownership doesn't have interest/time/energy to do that. But it seems like what is required to survive. I hope I'm wrong.

[John Terefenko]

126 posts to this and still counting. Again the core group is answering. If the ownership is determine to make this a payfor view site then do it already. But as I said do not block videos or photos only to non subscribers. this again is such a childish thing. If you do make it a money thing you definetly will lose a ton of members. It is a different scenario when someone forces you to pay for the use of a forum that you do contribute to in other ways than if you ask for donations or some sort of fund raiser. The site is physically too big and does not need to be but this is one opinion.

[Frederick Skelly]

. But as I said do not block videos or photos only to non subscribers. this again is such a childish thing. If you do make it a money thing you definetly will lose a ton of members. It is a different scenario when someone forces you to pay for the use of a forum that you do contribute to in other ways than if you ask for donations or some sort of fund raiser.

Hi John. Member of the core group responding here. :)

The real motive behind the phased removal of priviledges seems to be to get peoples' attention. Not to be "childish". As Keith has said, many people dont read announcements and didnt know the change was coming. But now there have been a load of "hey what happened" posts that resulted in people finding out. I agree that can be construed as putting the squeeze on Members. I dont believe that was Keith's intent. And honestly, I think taking this approach was smart - bring the coming change to peoples' attention and showing "ya dont know what ya got till it's gone." It has surprised me that a number of Members have subscribed to get their pictures or PM priviledges back. But I know that many others have quietly (or not so quietly) left rather than do so. That's a personal choice. Nobody has been forced to contribute.

Edit: I think the days of the "free" internet are numbered. But I guess we'll see....

Fred

[Patrick Walsh]

Without sounding unsympathetic to site owners and managers I see this blocking thing and forced pay for content a recipe for disaster. Imop it’s the beginning of the end.

I get maybe it’s already at the end and this is a last resort but imop this will be the straw that breaks the camels back. The content is already severely lacking and I can’t help but think it’s at least in part to micromanagement of various forum members for various reasons.

I understand it’s all a fine line what you allow and what you don’t but whatever choices are being made it does not seem to be working in the favor of a forum with really much of any content of real value to any skilled or serious woodworker.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

126 posts to this and still counting. Again the core group is answering. If the ownership is determine to make this a payfor view site then do it already. But as I said do not block videos or photos only to non subscribers. this again is such a childish thing. If you do make it a money thing you definetly will lose a ton of members. It is a different scenario when someone forces you to pay for the use of a forum that you do contribute to in other ways than if you ask for donations or some sort of fund raiser. The site is physically too big and does not need to be but this is one opinion.

What is more childish John, everything is free or you get what you pay for?

[John Terefenko]

What is more childish John, everything is free or you get what you pay for?

I see where this thread could get muddy quickly. But let say I do not pay $6 but still can post to a thread like is happening now is this not stupid?? How about all my photos that I contributed in yesteryears others still can see them. I still can attach photos but can not see others. What is not childish about this Ken??????????

He should have made the announcement as a threaded post and not those stupid announcement on top. Of course no one reads them I never read one yet. Make the thread a sticky. Do this in each of the 100 forums you have here.

Someone above mentioned you do not know what you have until you lose it. As I said that is a 2 way street. So be aware when you make it a payperview site.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I see where this thread could get muddy quickly. But let say I do not pay $6 but still can post to a thread like is happening now is this not stupid?? How about all my photos that I contributed in yesteryears others still can see them. I still can attach photos but can not see others. What is not childish about this Ken??????????

He should have made the announcement as a threaded post and not those stupid announcement on top. Of course no one reads them I never read one yet. Make the thread a sticky. Do this in each of the 100 forums you have here.

Someone above mentioned you do not know what you have until you lose it. As I said that is a 2 way street. So be aware when you make it a payperview site.

Gee, that means when it goes to pay-per-view, Keith will at least get paid for someone to call his policies "childish"? What a novel idea!

Again....posts aren't paying the bills thus they don't have any monetary value. It takes recognized monetary value to pay the bills to keep the lights on here. Sorry. That is an "adult" fact.

Keep in mind you are the one who first lowered the bar here.

[Matt Day]

If a website is behind a pay wall, or requires a subscription, IÂ’m out.

Honestly, my $6 isnÂ’t going to do diddly for this website.

This is the same childish reasoning why lots of people don’t vote.


Patrick, John, others, if you don’t like it here for all these reasons then LEAVE! Why are you still here discussing this? The powers that be have made their decision.

[Mel Fulks]

Gave a down- on -luck guy a sandwich once and then closed the door. He yelled "I'd like to watch tv while I eat this".

[Barry McFadden]

This is the same childish reasoning why lots of people don’t vote.


Patrick, John, others, if you don’t like it here for all these reasons then LEAVE! Why are you still here discussing this? The powers that be have made their decision.

I totally agree... if these "members" think it is such a bad idea then just GO!!!!...we don't need to hear your argument over and over and over.... move on to another website and give them the joy of listening to you...

[Mike Kreinhop]

The real motive behind the phased removal of priviledges seems to be to get peoples' attention.

I am speculating, but there could be another reason for the current policy of who can view images, and it relates to bandwidth. Keith uses his own server and pays for the bandwidth we consume, and since all images uploaded to the SMC server must be downloaded each time they are viewed, this costs Keith. Restricting the viewing, and thus the downloading, reduces the bandwidth requirement. But I could be wrong.

This does not appear to be the case for images hosted externally, since the user's computer fetches the image from the external hosting site and there is no burden on the SMC server.

As a test, I am adding two images to this post. The first is from my external hosting site and the second is one I uploaded to the SMC server.

Everyone should be able to see this image of a car:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars-Planes-Boats/Cars/i-gTKTdhj/0/2a5d189a/L/Old%20Car%201-L.jpg (https://www.kreinhop.com/Cars-Planes-Boats/Cars/i-gTKTdhj/A)


Only paying members should be able to see this image of a truck:

409678

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Mike, I'll confirm I can see both.

[Lee Schierer]

I am speculating, but there could be another reason for the current policy of who can view images, and it relates to bandwidth. Keith uses his own server and pays for the bandwidth we consume, and since all images uploaded to the SMC server must be downloaded each time they are viewed, this costs Keith. Restricting the viewing, and thus the downloading, reduces the bandwidth requirement. But I could be wrong.

This does not appear to be the case for images hosted externally, since the user's computer fetches the image from the external hosting site and there is no burden on the SMC server.

As a test, I am adding two images to this post. The first is from my external hosting site and the second is one I uploaded to the SMC server.

Everyone should be able to see this image of a car:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars-Planes-Boats/Cars/i-gTKTdhj/0/2a5d189a/L/Old%20Car%201-L.jpg (https://www.kreinhop.com/Cars-Planes-Boats/Cars/i-gTKTdhj/A)


Only paying members should be able to see this image of a truck:

409678

The problem with externally linked photos is the host site can go belly up or pay to play and the photos disappear, just like they did for Photobucket.

Guys, the change is open to polite discussion and opinions are valued. Name calling and things of that sort don't help anything, so please keep it polite.

How many of you that are complaining about the $6.00 contributor fee are running ad blockers? The ads here are far from intrusive, yet they pay for the site. I have my ads turned on and I even click on them from time to time just to create a hit. If the complainers all did that then maybe the bills could be paid without fees.

[Greg R Bradley]

Mike, I'll confirm I can see both.
And I'll confirm I can only see the first. The reason why is that I hate PayPal so much that I just have a tough time using it for anything so just never get to it. So this is what it took to force me to use the evil PayPal.
Edit: and now that I've finally been force to use PayPal, I can see the second.

[Mike Kreinhop]

The problem with externally linked photos is the host site can go belly up or pay to play and the photos disappear, just like they did for Photobucket.

True, and I use the free Flickr and paid Smugmug for my image hosting. The image of the car is from my Smugmug site, and the only way it will go away is if I go belly up and stop paying the annual hosting fee. This is a legacy from my photography days.


The ads here are far from intrusive, yet they pay for the site. I have my ads turned on and I even click on them from time to time just to create a hit.

I whitelisted the SMC in my adblocker and Ghostery, and also opted to see the ads, even though they don't benefit me at all.

[Lee Schierer]

And I'll confirm I can only see the first. The reason why is that I hate PayPal so much that I just have a tough time using it for anything so just never get to it. So this is what it took to force me to use the evil PayPal.
Edit: and now that I've finally been force to use PayPal, I can see the second.

You can also send a paper check, then SMC gets all the money with no fees.

[Greg R Bradley]

You can also send a paper check, then SMC gets all the money with no fees.
Sure that makes sense in general, particularly with the older crowd here.

Checks are almost obsolete and just a few years from not existing at all. Probably won't even be legal.
I've got a floor standing laser printer with 6 bins for printing checks out of various accounts in my AP department. One business has about 20 packs of 100 left over from the last order of 10,000 when we used to generate about 80 a week. I'll probably get to open one pack of 100 before checks are dead. Down from 80 a week out of that bin to 1-2 and falling fast.

[Patrick Walsh]

Let me make clear I’m not complaining about rating with $6. I could care less about that. I’m just suggesting and making the argument restrictions adding to a falloff in quality content and that there is a price to pay for everything.

We all have choices to make and our own personal reasons for those choices.

Hear me loud and clear I’m not complaining.

As of now this place is still entertaining to me. Although I admit the lack of quality content has me loosing interest quickly. But I’m still here and happy to pay pretty much whatever is asked within reason.

I just hope that my concerns rattle the administration enough and hope that my saying something will inspire others whom feel the same to speak up and that there may be power in numbers and this strategy reconsidered.

I’m not suggesting I’m right, I’m probably wrong and there is probably way more going on here that’s many of us even understand. At the end of the day it’s a forum and if it’s here and worth visiting great, if not probably better to spend less time behind the computer and more building..

[Ken Fitzgerald]

One last time. There are 2 owners, Keith and Jackie. They have already sacrificed one business to bankruptcy trying to keep SMC flowing. It didn't work due to rising costs. When it looked like the Creek was going to dry up, a former Moderator came with the paid membership idea and thus started the "Contributor" /"Member" labels and donations. That didn't pay all the expenses and thus came the advertising. The decrease in advertising dollars isn't just at SMC but across the internet because of ad-blocking software. Keith has mulled over the many options and chose what has been discussed to the point of nausea.

At the same time, the labor that Keith, Jackie, and the volunteer, unpaid Moderators generously give to maintain the friendly atmosphere here at SMC is taken for granted by too many members. The servers are located in Keith's shop a short distance behind his rural home. Paying $6 annually not only helps pay the bills but also is a form of acknowledgment of the fruits of their joint labor.

In the end, only 2 people have any financial or legal liability involved with the Creek, Keith and Jackie.

I'd suggest that nobody has a right to publicly challenge or berate Keith for the decision that is being made since nobody else has the responsibilities or liabilities. It's takes no commitment or knowledge to be critical of someone's decision.

[Mark Beall]

The decrease in advertising dollars isn't just at SMC but across the internet because of ad-blocking software. Keith has mulled over the many options and chose what has been discussed to the point of nausea.

Don't tell google that: Google's Q4 ad revenue rises 20% https://www.mobilemarketer.com/news/googles-q4-ad-revenue-rises-20-as-its-pricing-power-erodes/547666/ - a selected quote from that “The worldwide digital ad market was forecast to grow about 18% to $273.3 billion last year”

Maybe you’re just doing it wrong. I distinctly remember Keith writing that he could use and ad service that would make him lots of money, but he thought it would be ugly. (I don’t really feel motivated enough to search for that thread, it was less than a year ago, I think it may have been deleted - not because he said that, but because it became a not very civil thread). I would just say that ugly ads with the option to turn them off (if you pay), are actually quite a good idea.

For those people that think everything should be free - just realize that something being free usually means that you are the product being sold (information about you is sold to fund what you get for free). You have to decide if you’re ok with that.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Let me make clear I’m not complaining about rating with $6. I could care less about that. I’m just suggesting and making the argument restrictions adding to a falloff in quality content and that there is a price to pay for everything.

Well said. Non-contributor members provide lots of content, the objective value of which certainly exceeds $6. I worry that this pay-to-play will just scare away the folks who are providing (for free) the content. The problem isn't lack of Contributors - it's the lack of a way to monetize this valuable content being provided for free by members.



Adblockers work by hiding domains associated with services which serve ads. One option to show ads and not have them blocked is to just not use those services. Approach potential advertisers directly, say "I've got 10k page views per day - would you pay $x to display an ad?" and just host the picture comprising the ad directly on SMC. It's not as easy as using Google AdSense (or some similar service), but it's completely blocker-proof. I believe this is how many more specialized blogs continue to serve advertisements, today.
Many sites (Canadian Woodworking, NBC News, others) have popups which require disabling adblockers to continue. That could be implemented. Obviously some risk it stops being workable in the future, but could dramatically increase ad views, now.
On Reddit, people pay real money to give each other virtual "coins" which unlock additional features. I know similar has been attempted on SMC with access to sub-forums like the Lumberyard, and for entry into FreeStuff drawings, but that benefits oneself - there is an interesting different angle to giving it to others. For instance, I love reading Mr. Patrick Walsh's thread on his Martin restoration - he has poured hours upon hours into documenting that for our benefit. If I could press a "Like" button on his posts, debit my account by ~$1, and have 50c go to him and 50c go to SMC, I certainly would. It would incentivize quality content creation AND support SMC costs. (This is just a back of the napkin example - my point is that people are willingly giving money to a $2B private company like Reddit...I imagine they would do the same, here, with the right incentives)
Simply being more clear about the impact of adblockers would help. Another site I visit has a red blinking banner at the top that says "We're a non profit and adblockers are starving us! Please turn yours off!". So I did. I had no idea. I suspect most people don't.
Transparency about costs and revenues may drive philanthropic funding. I give to Wikipedia because I understand who they are, what they're doing, how much they raise, how close they are to their goals, etc. I have no idea if SMC is a non-profit, even (not that it needs to be), what the costs are, what they fund, etc. If Keith doesn't desire to share that, I totally understand - just suggesting that this may be an option, given the right circumstances.


I just list these ideas to show that there are options. I don't know much about the operations behind this site, but I'm a smart guy, and my intuition is that the $6 fee will simultaneously be the death of the site and insufficient to generate any real revenue. On the other hand, if the site ownership just doesn't want the hassle, wants SMC to condense into a smaller group of like-minded folks, etc - well, that would be sad, but I'd understand.

[Greg R Bradley]

I am sure Keith is getting a lot of grief over any changes. Nobody likes change, especially old people like us and this includes me. Almost all of us are old so we are set in our ways and resistant to change. We are not a good market for many advertisers. We are a lot more careful with our expenditures. Some of this should be PAINFULLY obvious with endless whining about SIX. BUCKS. Really? Even threads started about being proud to be a cheapskate even though most of those people are spending more being cheap than if they were reasonable in their spending.
However, there are lots of other forums that seem to be doing OK selling advertising as their major source of revenue. Perhaps they are that different or have a different user group where ad revenue is better.
Some of the numbers don't seem to make sense. Huge numbers of non registered visits? Are these just people looking at the results of an internet search or are they taking up serious bandwidth? Are there really SO few people that regularly use the site but won't pay $6 to do so?
Making it necessary to pay $6 to view pictures would seem to have been a good first step. Its sad that people didn't read the announcements and were confused so this thread was started but that is reality. I'm assuming this is making a big difference in contributions. Next step would be to have to pay the $6 to post. Perhaps that would make another big difference.

I think eliminating the ability to view the forum at all without paying will be a HUGE detriment and will result in a decline. However, perhaps the costs of non registered viewing really is that high. Not streaming pictures to them should result in a huge reduction of bandwidth but the server still needs to process the large number of connections.

[Frederick Skelly]

* Most of us understand that Keith's not "going private" because he wants to. He's fighting to keep the site alive - literally keep the lights on. To me, this is this is like a medical triage situation - we must save the site first, and handle the side effects of what we did to save it afterwards.

* Membership loss is one side effect. Lack of new blood is definitely going to be another. That is the one that worries me the most - far more than paying a subscription fee. (I found this place via google and got hooked.) And there will be other side effects we havent thought of yet.

* Keith's looked at the options he feels are credible and going Subscriber-only is the best fit in his view as Proprietor. By "credible", I mean the option is affordable to him and within what he is willing to do. From what he's already said, he's not really seeking more ideas. His son-in-law is a professor of computer science and has presumably helped him weigh what he wants to do. From what I can tell, "this here's a done deal".

Each person will stay or not as they see fit. There will be impacts. We'll either work through them or we won't. But we gotta try.

[Harold Balzonia]

Well said. Non-contributor members provide lots of content, the objective value of which certainly exceeds $6. I worry that this pay-to-play will just scare away the folks who are providing (for free) the content. The problem isn't lack of Contributors - it's the lack of a way to monetize this valuable content being provided for free by members.



Adblockers work by hiding domains associated with services which serve ads. One option to show ads and not have them blocked is to just not use those services. Approach potential advertisers directly, say "I've got 10k page views per day - would you pay $x to display an ad?" and just host the picture comprising the ad directly on SMC. It's not as easy as using Google AdSense (or some similar service), but it's completely blocker-proof. I believe this is how many more specialized blogs continue to serve advertisements, today.
Many sites (Canadian Woodworking, NBC News, others) have popups which require disabling adblockers to continue. That could be implemented. Obviously some risk it stops being workable in the future, but could dramatically increase ad views, now.
On Reddit, people pay real money to give each other virtual "coins" which unlock additional features. I know similar has been attempted on SMC with access to sub-forums like the Lumberyard, and for entry into FreeStuff drawings, but that benefits oneself - there is an interesting different angle to giving it to others. For instance, I love reading Mr. Patrick Walsh's thread on his Martin restoration - he has poured hours upon hours into documenting that for our benefit. If I could press a "Like" button on his posts, debit my account by ~$1, and have 50c go to him and 50c go to SMC, I certainly would. It would incentivize quality content creation AND support SMC costs. (This is just a back of the napkin example - my point is that people are willingly giving money to a $2B private company like Reddit...I imagine they would do the same, here, with the right incentives)
Simply being more clear about the impact of adblockers would help. Another site I visit has a red blinking banner at the top that says "We're a non profit and adblockers are starving us! Please turn yours off!". So I did. I had no idea. I suspect most people don't.
Transparency about costs and revenues may drive philanthropic funding. I give to Wikipedia because I understand who they are, what they're doing, how much they raise, how close they are to their goals, etc. I have no idea if SMC is a non-profit, even (not that it needs to be), what the costs are, what they fund, etc. If Keith doesn't desire to share that, I totally understand - just suggesting that this may be an option, given the right circumstances.


I just list these ideas to show that there are options. I don't know much about the operations behind this site, but I'm a smart guy, and my intuition is that the $6 fee will simultaneously be the death of the site and insufficient to generate any real revenue. On the other hand, if the site ownership just doesn't want the hassle, wants SMC to condense into a smaller group of like-minded folks, etc - well, that would be sad, but I'd understand.

Dan - this kind of logical, unemotional list of solutions is everything that’s right with SMC... but you’ll soon get pounded with “if you’re so smart and this is so easy, why don’t you start your own website....?”

You’re original idea of forcing people to turn off ad blockers to view the site, is a perfect answer to the stated problem of “not enough money coming in due to ad blockers”

Ultimately it doesn’t matter if I give $6 to the site or 100 new people join tomorrow and each give $6 or 1000 people do it... the $6 is not the issue, at all. It’s a pittance. If management implements your idea of requiring ad blockers off to view the site, and turns off the ad blocking requirement for those who contribute the $6, all the money comes back. Many times over. Stated problem solved.

But the majority here would rather scream “pay $6 or shut up and go away!” Not helpful or constructive, in my mind. This is why I’m certain the goal here is to shrink SMC considerably, not recoup lost money due to adblockers. And that is management’s right. But it’s disingenuous to cry about not having money due to adblockers, then a relatively easy solution is provided to remove adblocking capability and the company screams, we don’t like that answer, we like $6! Clearly, what’s really wanted here is a smaller forum with a much smaller footprint and only “club members” allowed. And that’s ok, by the way... that’s the right of the site owner.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Don't tell google that: Google's Q4 ad revenue rises 20% https://www.mobilemarketer.com/news/googles-q4-ad-revenue-rises-20-as-its-pricing-power-erodes/547666/ - a selected quote from that “The worldwide digital ad market was forecast to grow about 18% to $273.3 billion last year”

Maybe you’re just doing it wrong. I distinctly remember Keith writing that he could use and ad service that would make him lots of money, but he thought it would be ugly. (I don’t really feel motivated enough to search for that thread, it was less than a year ago, I think it may have been deleted - not because he said that, but because it became a not very civil thread). I would just say that ugly ads with the option to turn them off (if you pay), are actually quite a good idea.

For those people that think everything should be free - just realize that something being free usually means that you are the product being sold (information about you is sold to fund what you get for free). You have to decide if you’re ok with that.

Google is selling personal information..... your information, the data you create. You are right. Nothing is free.

Keith on the other hand isn't comfortable with that and has said he won't do it.

[Frederick Skelly]

But the majority here would rather scream “pay $6 or shut up and go away!” Not helpful or constructive, in my mind.

What's "not helpful or constructive" is you continuing to stir the pot. Keith isn't looking for ideas. The choice is now "opt in or opt out". It is binary - do or don't. That is why so many people have reacted with “pay $6 or shut up and go away!” Harold. Because you are not getting the message that this has already been decided.

[Pat Barry]

* Most of us understand that Keith's not "going private" because he wants to. He's fighting to keep the site alive - literally keep the lights on. To me, this is this is like a medical triage situation - we must save the site first, and handle the side effects of what we did to save it afterwards.

* Membership loss is one side effect. Lack of new blood is definitely going to be another. That is the one that worries me the most - far more than paying a subscription fee. (I found this place via google and got hooked.) And there will be other side effects we havent thought of yet.

* Keith's looked at the options he feels are credible and going Subscriber-only is the best fit in his view as Proprietor. By "credible", I mean the option is affordable to him and within what he is willing to do. From what he's already said, he's not really seeking more ideas. His son-in-law is a professor of computer science and has presumably helped him weigh what he wants to do. From what I can tell, "this here's a done deal".

Each person will stay or not as they see fit. There will be impacts. We'll either work through them or we won't. But we gotta try.

With all due respect Frederick, why are you and Ken doing all the representations for Keith here and talking like you really know what's going on? If you in fact know what's going on then please explain how my $6 contribution is going to keep this site alive? My opinion is that the site is limited significantly by the lack of technical knowledge and thusly, the site is withering due to not having the where-with-all to effectively manage the site. I paid my $6 because I thought it was a reasonable value, but I do think this place is not for long. I asked earlier about the cost to operate this place and never will get an answer I know because I'm just a customer and not a part-owner. Lots of talk last year about new site software and that never happened because there aren't the proper technical resources. Dealing with lost ad revenue similarly is probably due to technical capabilities. Other places manage this, why not here?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I am speculating, but there could be another reason for the current policy of who can view images, and it relates to bandwidth. Keith uses his own server and pays for the bandwidth we consume, and since all images uploaded to the SMC server must be downloaded each time they are viewed, this costs Keith. Restricting the viewing, and thus the downloading, reduces the bandwidth requirement. But I could be wrong.

This does not appear to be the case for images hosted externally, since the user's computer fetches the image from the external hosting site and there is no burden on the SMC server.

As a test, I am adding two images to this post. The first is from my external hosting site and the second is one I uploaded to the SMC server.

Everyone should be able to see this image of a car:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars-Planes-Boats/Cars/i-gTKTdhj/0/2a5d189a/L/Old%20Car%201-L.jpg (https://www.kreinhop.com/Cars-Planes-Boats/Cars/i-gTKTdhj/A)


Only paying members should be able to see this image of a truck:

409678


With all due respect Frederick, why are you and Ken doing all the representations for Keith here and talking like you really know what's going on? If you in fact know what's going on then please explain how my $6 contribution is going to keep this site alive? My opinion is that the site is limited significantly by the lack of technical knowledge and thusly, the site is withering due to not having the where-with-all to effectively manage the site. I paid my $6 because I thought it was a reasonable value, but I do think this place is not for long. I asked earlier about the cost to operate this place and never will get an answer I know because I'm just a customer and not a part-owner. Lots of talk last year about new site software and that never happened because there aren't the proper technical resources. Dealing with lost ad revenue similarly is probably due to technical capabilities. Other places manage this, why not here?

Pat, I believe Mike's on to something here.

The reason that I defend Keith's decision is because so many people without any investment, responsibilities or liabilities are quick to condemn his decisions. It's his business to do with as he wants. More importantly while he could have on several occasions sold SMC to a company hasn't done so and has said he will never sell our personal information here at SMC. I tire of so many people amplifying the "value" of their "important" contribution of information without realizing that without a website their information has no value or recognizing/appreciating the amount of labor that goes on in the background at SMC by all the staff, Keith, Jackie, and the Moderators. A couple people have relentlessly criticized his decision. There comes a time when continued, repeated public criticism by the same people becomes nothing more than public harassment. I won't stand by and watch a public chastisement of someone who had the courage to take the corpse of the Badger Pond (that I never knew existed), breath life into it and provide for over 15 years, a woodworking and related forums website where civility is not only expected, demanded but enforced, where from beginners to pros we can share information and in some cases develop friendships.

He has no responsibility to provide business expense, accounting, or financial reports/information to anyone but the IRS.

The new software has been in beta testing IIRC and the Moderators have been testing it but it's unseen by the general public. Moderators correct me if I'm wrong.

So Keith has made his decision. If he switched to that format and software tomorrow, locking out non-contributors, I suspect the same critics would be at other websites screaming they had no warning, claim they would have been happy to contribute but feel slighted and aren't going to join. Instead, he did what the current software allows him to do and removed viewing privileges for Members. This allows them to get a glimpse of what will happen next. And they claim "it's childish"? Really? Once the conversion is complete where it's Contributors only, they will have to pay to criticize him in his own house. One should not embarrass someone in their own house, IMO.

And while, yeah, Google is showing a huge growth, they are doing it by selling personal information that will allow a broader spectrum of companies to develop customized advertising and polling projection data based on a person's internet use and personal data. I read the book "1984" IIRC in the summer of 1970 while going to a US Navy school in Brunswick, GA. We are rapidly approaching a similar state, at least as far as "Big Brother" knowing what and where we are and what we are doing.

I don't know if Jackie is retired yet but Keith retired and is still operating his sign shop the last I heard. Consider this. If SMC does cease to exist, he has one less LARGE headache to worry about, he gets rid of the public criticisms, public questioning of his business practices, his business skills, "his technical skills" and the personal attacks that are experienced by the staff including the Moderators here. He'll have more time to spend with his growing family.

Harold may think I'm being emotional but I'm not. I just tire of watching people repeatedly, publicly criticize Keith for his business decision.

[Harold Balzonia]

Patient: hello doctor - I’ve been going along really well for years but suddenly my ankle has been hurting and I think it’s broken....

Doctor: let’s take a look at the X-rays.... yes, sir.... your ankle is broken.... we can fix it with a simple, routine surgery where you’ll be out of commission for 8-10 weeks, and it will hurt a little bit but we can help you to go back to your normal activities....

Patient: yeah... I looked into that surgery, and I looked into faith healers and acupuncture, and meditation and just letting it heal on it’s own but I’ve decided to just have you cut off my leg at the hip....

Doctor: excuse me? .... that seems really harsh and extreme.... you know, this surgery is very routine and hundreds of people go through it... we can even bring in a specialist, if you’d like....

Patient: no thanks... i really don’t care what any other person does with their broken ankles.... I’ve talked it over with a bunch of my friends and they all agree I should cut off my leg. They are willing to drive me around and they support me unconditionally.

Doctor: you have nice friends, but this is really an extreme approach and I can’t really see how it’s reasonable given how many other people are going through the exact same thing and working through it... we have proven solutions for this condition....

Patient: If I keep my leg, can you guarantee I’ll never break my ankle again?

Doctor: no...

Patient: well, if I cut off my leg, I’ll sure as heck never break my ankle again, will I? Plus, I’ll have more time in the mornings because I’ll only have to tie one shoe. And I get twice as much use out of my socks, and my primary care physician says I need to lose some weight so if I take off my leg, that’s 35 pounds instantly lost.... plus you’ll give me a handicap placard so I can park anywhere....

Doctor: you’ve clearly given this a lot of thought but, I cant condone it and I won’t cut off your leg. I wish you the best of luck, though... no hard feelings.... (doctor shakes his head...)

Patient: I’ll let you know how it turns out...

(chainsaw starts up in the background.....)

[Chris Fairbanks]

Keith, I have been a long time member here and an early contributor when you started offering the ability to contribute. I don’t post much due to my limited amount of shop time because of my work travel schedule but I do try to visit daily when I can as I enjoy reading a few of the main forums. I am concerned with you going to a subscription only model as I suspect it will be the beginning of the end of SMC due to the amount of people posting new content.

I have been working in IT consulting for 25+ year with the last 17 at a large consulting firm. We help customers of all shapes and sizes and I have personally run multiple vbulletin sites for some of other hobbies. In different threads of yours over the years I have seen mention of you paying T1 or fiber services to your shop and running the actual server there that SMC runs on. I also remember reading about you not wanting to host it in the cloud for some reason. Unfortunately the one thing with technology is that it is always changing and if you don’t keep up with it you are going to either get run over by it or pay a premium for it.

SMC is facing both of those right now. To keep a robust user community on a forum like this there is no way to have it be a pay only service like you are looking at. Even if it only cost $1 a year you will still have only a small amount of users paying for the service and the value for the paying members will diminish drastically as there will not be that much new content posted. I know you don’t want to play whack a mole with ad blockers but that is unfortunately the reality in today’s world. It’s not as bad as you think it is as most of the bulletin software packages have add ons to detect ad blockers. A lot of the websites I visit have this now and it works well. The other thing you really need to consider is hosting the website with a company on a virtual dedicated machine or with vbulletin cloud offering. I suspect your costs of hosting it in-house are extremely high and you could cut yours costs 50-90% and have the same or better performance. As I said technology changes and you have to keep up with it.

There are many forums out there exponentially larger than SMC that flourish on an ad supported model with a subscriber option for additional features (like PMs, better search, etc). One of the reef keeping forums I visit, reef central does it exactly this way and they have 2m threads and 20m posts. If you want to talk via PM or on the phone I don’t mind helping with some ideas on hosting ideas. I really enjoy SMC and hope it stays free for people who won’t or cannot support you as it makes it better for subscribers like me. I plan to continue being a subscriber for as long as SMC stays valuable to me as a resource but unfortunately I suspect if you close it to a subscriber only model it will be the beginning of the end.


Lets say that we did implement a pop-up that required you to disable your ad-blocker. Then a couple months later the ad-blocking software is revised to block the pop-up, then we used another tactic and then the ad-blocker is revised again......and on and on. I am not going to play games and waste my time and energy fighting a battle I know I cannot win. People want to block advertising and they are going to do it because someone will always produce the software people want.

You receive updated ad-blocking features every time you upgrade your browser, its not that easy for forum owners. Last but not least I don't really care what other forum owners do or don't do. My goal to make the majority here happy and provide a friendly place for woodworkers to share and communicate.

[Frederick Skelly]

The reason that I defend Keith's decision is because so many people without any investment, responsibilities or liabilities are quick to condemn his decisions. It's his business to do with as he wants. More importantly while he could have on several occasions sold SMC to a company hasn't done so and has said he will never sell our personal information here at SMC. I tire of so many people ........ (not) ........ recognizing/appreciating the amount of labor that goes on in the background at SMC by all the staff, Keith, Jackie, and the Moderators. A couple people have relentlessly criticized his decision. There comes a time when continued, repeated public criticism by the same people becomes nothing more than public harassment. I won't stand by and watch a public lynching of someone who had the courage to take the corpse of the Badger Pond (that I never knew existed), breath life into it and provide for over 15 years, a woodworking and related forums website where civility is not only expected, demanded but enforced, where from beginners to pros we can share information and in some cases develop friendships.

He has no responsibility to provide business expense, accounting, or financial reports/information to anyone but the IRS.

The new software has been in beta testing IIRC and the Moderators have been testing it but it's unseen by the general public. Moderators correct me if I'm wrong.

So Keith has made his decision. If he switched to that format and software tomorrow, locking out non-contributors, I suspect the same critics would be at other websites screaming they had no warning, claim they would have been happy to contribute but feel slighted and aren't going to join. Instead, he did what the current software allows him to do and removed viewing privileges for Members. This allows them to get a glimpse of what will happen next. And they claim "it's childish"? Really? Once the conversion is complete where it's Contributors only, they will have to pay to criticize him in his own house. One should not embarrass someone in their own house, IMO.

Harold may think I'm being emotional but I'm not. I just tire of watching people repeatedly, publicly criticize Keith for his business decision.

Hi Pat.
No special knowledge on my end beyond what Keith has repeatedly said. The parts of Ken's post that I excerpt above are mostly where I'm coming from as well.

Like others, I am concerned about how it's going to go here. I have learned a great deal here and value the place. I was also on Badger Pond. Your points about "technical knowledge" are thought provoking and well made. I don't have any ideas on that.

Fred

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Patient: hello doctor - I’ve been going along really well for years but suddenly my ankle has been hurting and I think it’s broken....


Harold, you are about the 1000th person who has posted how easy it is to fix everything and make the forum profitable. I don’t have the technical knowledge or time to know if everyone is right. I do know I have not seen any of those people put their money where their mouth is and fire up a forum even though to hear them tell it a forum takes no effort, any idiot can do it, and there is a boatload of money to be made.

I am kind of with Ken. The internet is a rough and tumble place, but something rubs me the wrong way about all of these posts insulting Keith on the forum he provides. Why are all of these posts public? If you want to criticize him or have a suggestion why not send him a PM? At some point it seems like the purpose of the posts is to publicly insult the person who has to make the decision instead of offering constructive help.

[Matt Day]

Harold - you have a lot to say for someone who has only contributed 175 posts in 5 years. Guessing you mainly come here to read and learn from others.

Lots of talk very few ideas for a solutions.

Here’s one suggestion I’ve made three times now and no one has really made a comment about it:
For those worried about lack of content and new users, how about new users have a free trial period to get them in and hopefully they stay and pay and become a contributor? I know there will be a lot of single posters who come once to ask a question, a question that likely has been asked before, but it adds new content and allows us to help beginners.

[Frederick Skelly]

Here’s one suggestion I’ve made three times now and no one has really made a comment about it:For those worried about lack of content and new users, how about new users have a free trial period to get them in and hopefully they stay and pay and become a contributor? I know there will be a lot of single posters who come once to ask a question, a question that likely has been asked before, but it adds new content and allows us to help beginners.

Good morning Matt.
Actually, Keith commented on this at least once. I didnt search for the post, but IIRC, he felt folks would just register under another name to get another free trial. Im not saying he's right or wrong.
Fred

[Dan Friedrichs]

Patient: hello doctor - I’ve been going along really well for years but suddenly my ankle has been hurting and I think it’s broken....

Doctor: let’s take a look at the X-rays.... yes, sir.... your ankle is broken.... we can fix it with a simple, routine surgery where you’ll be out of commission for 8-10 weeks, and it will hurt a little bit but we can help you to go back to your normal activities....

Patient: yeah... I looked into that surgery, and I looked into faith healers and acupuncture, and meditation and just letting it heal on it’s own but I’ve decided to just have you cut off my leg at the hip....

Doctor: excuse me? .... that seems really harsh and extreme.... you know, this surgery is very routine and hundreds of people go through it... we can even bring in a specialist, if you’d like....

Patient: no thanks... i really don’t care what any other person does with their broken ankles.... I’ve talked it over with a bunch of my friends and they all agree I should cut off my leg. They are willing to drive me around and they support me unconditionally.

Doctor: you have nice friends, but this is really an extreme approach and I can’t really see how it’s reasonable given how many other people are going through the exact same thing and working through it... we have proven solutions for this condition....

Patient: If I keep my leg, can you guarantee I’ll never break my ankle again?

Doctor: no...

Patient: well, if I cut off my leg, I’ll sure as heck never break my ankle again, will I? Plus, I’ll have more time in the mornings because I’ll only have to tie one shoe. And I get twice as much use out of my socks, and my primary care physician says I need to lose some weight so if I take off my leg, that’s 35 pounds instantly lost.... plus you’ll give me a handicap placard so I can park anywhere....

Doctor: you’ve clearly given this a lot of thought but, I cant condone it and I won’t cut off your leg. I wish you the best of luck, though... no hard feelings.... (doctor shakes his head...)

Patient: I’ll let you know how it turns out...

(chainsaw starts up in the background.....)

I hope everyone will take a second to read this. I see it exactly the same way. This is like watching a beloved old friend (SMC) trying to cut off his leg to avoid having to tie a shoe in the future.

I also hope everyone will read Chris Fairbanks' post (#155). The root cause problem isn't adblockers or anything - it's that there isn't interest/time to evolve with changing technology. Which is fine - I understand, if that's the case. But don't pretend $6 fees are the solution, because they aren't really the "problem".

[Patrick Walsh]

I’m gonna leave my contribution to this conversation and topic at this.

I’ll start by saying I can’t begin to speculate the intent or desire of the forum owners and moderators nor will I even try to speculate.

I can’t help but think or rather feel as it continues to creep into my subconscious that we all have to and are forced to step into the future as things change or we all get left behind. In some cases some of us choose being left behind as that is what suits us most. In many cases this is me.

My point, the Felder forum or SCMI forum. These two forums once were vibrant, they did not adapt, they did not stepinto the future with the internet as the internet changed. Now it is to painful to make that move. Imop the two forums although some help with regard to a deep knowledge base can be found are both duds. You can hear the tumbleweeds blow through them. It’s obvious that it’s the same ten people just taking back and forth with each other baring the odd new member that comes knocking with zero knowledge looking for a basic answer. That’s fine and maybe that is what those forum members desire but it’s not a forum if you ask me and honestly I see the updates I get from joining them years ago as nothing more than spam at this point.

I won’t speculate what’s going on here but just offer the above as one possibility if this new direction is followed through with. Again I really don’t care as I don’t think any of our life start and stop with SMC..

[John K Jordan]

Good morning Matt.
Actually, Keith commented on this at least once. I didnt search for the post, but IIRC, he felt folks would just register under another name to get another free trial. Im not saying he's right or wrong.
Fred

I think the person might have to change their IP as well to do that repeatedly regardless of the name they used. Years ago when I moderated a 3D modeling/animation forum the tools told me if someone at the same IP was logging in under a different name. That forum required the use of real names, or at least names that looked real! (When reminded of the rules the guy who changed his name from MegaMan to GraphicsGod to I.M.King didn't last long for some reason!)

Some forums I've visited let you view posts and photos but not post without registering. Some let you read text only and not see photos and not post. One had nag screens that started popping up with increasing frequency. I remember one that let me view just the first part of a longer post without registering - that gave me enough to decide to register. Perhaps some combination of these would work. I agree that without a way to browse a forum for free long enough to evaluate the content would be important to attract new people.

Advertising in national magazines might be useful too, but that's expensive.

JKJ

[Keith Outten]

The problem is that everyone wants free services without advertising. Where do the funds come from to pay the bills?

We have never been a very profitable community, to make things worse we lost 40% of our income last year and 2019 will even worse.
This is not a fight or a debate. You don't want advertising to pay for your free access here, the only other option I know of is for you to pay for access.
If 50 cents per month causes you heartburn so be it, not much I can do about your financial situation or for people who prefer free services that I cannot provide.

[Keith Outten]

For the record I am not interested in downsizing SawMill Creek and I am not tired of or hoping to reduce my administrative responsibilities here. I prefer to see this Community grow as it always has, in fact we have had many years that our growth rates have been over 250%. Believe me we were really struggling in those days squeezing every penny to increase our bandwidth and purchase faster servers.

There is a problem with growth - If only a small percentage of new registrations provide financial support the more you grow the faster you go out of business if you cannot increase advertising revenue. I have never been able to attract enough advertisers to provide all of our financial needs and I can't count the number of hours I have spent trying to increase the number of advertisers. Because I have never been willing to sell any information concerning this Community I literally cut off a huge funding source when we needed it the most. In 2008 when the economy tanked we barely got by on the skin of our teeth but Aaron and I came up with an alternative advertising plan that reduced their costs and increased their exposure here. Even so it took a long time to get back to where we were but we did just that and increased the number of advertisers here over a couple of years.

I won't go though what happened in the past again, it was just to stressful a period of time and all I was doing was saving a few people 50 cents per month at a major cost to my health and my family. I promised that I would always be here for you as long as you support me, that has not changed.

FWIW even if I installed a pop-up blocker it will not replace the number of advertisers we have lost and its highly unlikely that any changes in the near future will make a difference in the direction people on the Internet are going. Free services without funding is impossible.

I get it......advertising has gotten to be abusive and in some cases just plain painful. I place no blame on anyone concerning how they feel about constantly being bombarded with superficial commercials, I am in the same boat and feel just as you do about the abuse. Note that I have done my very best to protect this Community from this kind of abuse, in fact all of our sponsors banners are physically on our server and I check each one, and their links, to make sure they are appropriate for our Community before I approve them.

We are experiencing an increase in the number of people who have decided to become Contributors here, whether it will be enough to cover our costs remains to be seen.