I don't see images in posts

[Richard Hutchings]

If I click on a link to an image I get a message saying I don't have permission to view them. I'm not a regular so that may have something to do with it.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Richard,

earlier this year IIRC, the rules changed here at SMC. Only people who contribute financially can see images. For a mere suggested $6 annual donation, one can send private messages and view images. This is in effort to support the rising costs of operating a forum like SMC. Personally, I have gained far more value from the civil exchange of information at SMC than a $6 donation would pay.

[Richard Hutchings]

Thanks Ken.

[Paul Dorman]

The message that appears to non-contributors trying to view a picture ("you do not have permission to access this page") has a link to "Click here for information on viewing pictures", but apparently we don't have permission to view the link, either, as it shows the exact same message.

[Richard Hutchings]

My problem with the 6 dollars is, I'm on a lot of forums and if I gave you money to all of them it would quickly add up. I will just keep following the free ones until they're gone. Sorry.

[Craig Andera]

The message that appears to non-contributors trying to view a picture ("you do not have permission to access this page") has a link to "Click here for information on viewing pictures", but apparently we don't have permission to view the link, either, as it shows the exact same message.

Same problem - had to search a bunch to find this policy. Which I think is a very reasonable one. But I'm guessing a bunch of people will give up before donating due to the fact that the link is currently broken.

[Mike Turner]

Same here !!!

[Scott Donley]

Yep, looks like someone must have hit the wrong switch. Kind of hard to donate if the links to donate won't work unless you are a contributor. Catch 22

[Jim Becker]

The Donate button at the top of the page should work...and the broken link in the message has been brought to the attention of Keith and Aaron.

Jim
Forum Moderator

[Mike Thornbury]

It only seems to be the woodworking and handcraft forums that demand money for the most basic forum services.

In my opinion, shortsighted as it is the MEMBERS that make a forum. You want to attract members and by making you pay for something as basic as viewing images, you are alienating people.

For example, there was a question posted which I think I would have been very able to answer, but the question involved viewing a picture to make a determination.

So that post got no input from me.

I can understand not being allowed to upload pictures, but being unable to view them?

I've been registered here for a few years, but I won't bother in future.

This is how forums die.

[Phil Hansen]

In my opinion, shortsighted as it is the MEMBERS that make a forum. You want to attract members and by making you pay for something as basic as viewing images, you are alienating people.
I can understand not being allowed to upload pictures, but being unable to view them?
I've been registered here for a few years, but I won't bother in future.
This is how forums die.

I agree with Mike. If I cannot see what members are talking about why bother.
Exchange rates to other currency makes a big difference as well.

[Mike Turner]

My problem with the 6 dollars is, I'm on a lot of forums and if I gave you money to all of them it would quickly add up. I will just keep following the free ones until they're gone. Sorry.

My feelings too.

[Jim Becker]

Everybody has the choice to do what's best for them. So does the forum owner...they need to pay the costs that are incurred to run the place which are substantial. As has been pointed out many, many times, advertising isn't covering that anymore. Content incentives to pay a modest $6 a year...less than 2 cents a day...actually is helping to deal with that gap in funding and has actually delayed the need to have a higher cost subscription. I really don't get this "it has to be free" attitude...but that's me. Others are certainly welcome to their opinions.

[Barry McFadden]

Everybody has the choice to do what's best for them. So does the forum owner...they need to pay the costs that are incurred to run the place which are substantial. As has been pointed out many, many times, advertising isn't covering that anymore. Content incentives to pay a modest $6 a year...less than 2 cents a day...actually is helping to deal with that gap in funding and has actually delayed the need to have a higher cost subscription. I really don't get this "it has to be free" attitude...but that's me. Others are certainly welcome to their opinions.

And as has been pointed out many,many,many, times before.... It's ONLY 6 dollars!!!... and yet probably the majority of members has a computer. internet. cell phone, etc... 6 bucks isn't going to break anyone on these forums...

[Jay Champagne]

I found it super difficult as a new member to contribute.
All the links I was finding were broken.
I ended up finding one in a moderator's (Bruce Page) sig that worked.

[Lee Schierer]

I found it super difficult as a new member to contribute.
All the links I was finding were broken.
I ended up finding one in a moderator's (Bruce Page) sig that worked.

At the top of every forum page is a donate button that works. There is also a link in my signature.

[Keith Outten]

418029

Here is the donate button.

Aaron is working on correcting the error in the secondary link you get when you click on a picture. We missed this one when we were making changes a few weeks ago.
There is also a link at the bottom of every page to our email address if you need assistance and do not have any internal way to contact us.

The changes we had to make are regrettable, it is so much easier to provide every service for free rather than having to adjust access privileges for just one group. Unfortunately we have to pay the bills and if we cannot find enough advertisers to cover our operational costs our only option is to pay them ourselves. It is a major job to solicit companies to become advertisers here, over the last seventeen years I have spent thousands of hours on the phone and via email messages communicating with companies asking for their financial support in an effort to provide free access here. Today I am unable to dedicate the amount of time I have in the past. It is just impossible to maintain my sign business, SawMill Creek and still have some personal time for myself and to spend with my family. You might notice that over the years you haven't seen many project pictures that I have shared here, only pictures of business signs that I have made. My personal shop time has been near non-existent for a very long time, my time has been spent working here seven days a week several times every day for seventeen years.

So now I'm asking you all to help me pay the bills. It's a small request that will take just a few minutes of your time once per year but it will make an immeasurable change to my schedule. Some of you know that five years ago I had medical problems that slowed me down quite a bit. Currently I am in another round of constant doctors visits to correct another medical issue so my access here has been less than normal for the last few weeks and I have a ways to go. In the meantime I also have been exercising my right to enjoy life just a little bit more than in the past.

There is no debate over whether we are going to pay our bills here, we will or we won't. There is also no debate about whether I will keep my sign business going, it pays my bills so I will continue my sign business as a priority.

Thanks to all of you who have been donating here to keep the lights on so to speak. You have always been the reason that SawMill Creek exists.
.

[Jay Champagne]

That button did not work for me when I tried it.
It directed me to an access denied page, as most things I tried did. It does work for me now of course, that I am set as a contributor.
Not questioning your motives in the least, just offering my help/observations as a new visitor.

[John K Jordan]

...
I've been registered here for a few years, but I won't bother in future.
This is how forums die.

Time will tell. Before the new policy many people already chose to contribute voluntary. There was much discussion and debate and some complaining about this when the policy was initiated. The reasons were given for the change and they made sense to me. Many people were happy to send the less than 2 cents a day and continue to this day to make valuable contributions to and get value from the forum. A few people got mad and left. Life on the forum has continued.

I personally learn a lot from this forum and am glad to contribute my time and my money. I also choose to voluntarily support to other forums I visit frequently, even when not required. (I tip at restaurants and bellhops too.) I personally think every little bit helps to pay the bills to keep these forums open.

BTW, I understand a "Member" can still upload photos, just not view them. Contributing also allows posting to the Classifieds area to sell things and to send and receive private messages.

https://sawmillcreek.org/payments.php

JKJ

[Keith Outten]

I should add that you must be logged in to SawMill Creek to use the Donate link.
If you are not logged in the donate process cannot connect you account here to PayPal so it can upgrade your account.

[Frederick Skelly]

I've been registered here for a few years, but I won't bother in future.

This is how forums die.

We had a great deal of conversation on the pros and cons of changing SMC earlier in the year. Perhaps you werent logging on regularly then and missed them. I thought the matter got a pretty thorough vetting by the community by the time it quieted down. Points similar to yours were discussed long and hard.

As a result of the changes we lost several members whose advice I valued. But at the end of the day, it's like President Ronald Reagan once said: "No bucks - no Buck Rogers."

[Jackie Outten]

Thank you Jay

Jackie

[Bert Kemp]

Why don't you make it mandatory for members to turn off add blockers and contributors can run them if they want. I've come across websites that throw up a popup that tells me if I want to view the page I have to whitelist it or turn off my blockers, can't we do that here for members only? I have turned my ad blockers off here and make it a point to spend a few minutes checking out some of the ad's. :)

[Jim Becker]

Bert, that is certainly something that's been discussed previously...right now with this older vBulletin software, it is less likely to be practical than when the time resources are available to migrate to Xenforo. That said, the ad-blocker damage is already done..."getting advertisers" is a lot tougher these days for forum sites for a number of reasons including the precipitous drop in click throughs in previous years. It's not just SMC that struggles with this... BTW, Contributors can already turn off ads if they don't want to see them.

[William Burnett]

Everybody has the choice to do what's best for them. So does the forum owner...they need to pay the costs that are incurred to run the place which are substantial. As has been pointed out many, many times, advertising isn't covering that anymore. Content incentives to pay a modest $6 a year...less than 2 cents a day...actually is helping to deal with that gap in funding and has actually delayed the need to have a higher cost subscription. I really don't get this "it has to be free" attitude...but that's me. Others are certainly welcome to their opinions.

Most of the dissent is not actually driven by "it has to be free" or the "small cost". I think you will find those complaining are complaining due to the principles at play here.

Mr. Outten is not creating content - the traffic to this site exists BECAUSE of the content FREELY posted by others. There are some modest hosting costs (this is not a large forum in the context of large forums) and maybe occasional legal and IT fees.

You mentioned how lucky we are, as he is delaying further raising the prices to fill the shortfall.... That means that the $6 is going to become $7 or $70 --- whatever. The reality is that due to the principles in play here, the shortfall will increase as more people become frustrated and flee or refuse to participate, prompting even less advertising and revenue, more "pay to see" content and an even larger shortfall and higher subscription prices.

The simple fact: The decision to hide member contributed content (be it only images at this point) behind a paywall, especially content that when posted was FREE, is antithetical the very essence of what made this forum viable in the first place. If the advertising model is not paying the bills, taxing the user is certainly not going to make the situation better in the long run. Ask photobucket how holding forum posted images hostage behind a paywall worked!

While I don't have an answer, I don't see this model panning out, as there are several other well traveled forums in this niche that are do not hide content behind a paywall. So yeah it is "just $6" but that is $5.99 more than the most the of the traffic is likely willing to pay.

Simply put , if the advertisers are not paying the bills and voluntary donations are not bridging the gap, then the traffic simply does not support the existence of this site.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Most of the dissent is not actually driven by "it has to be free" or the "small cost". I think you will find those complaining are complaining due to the principles at play here.

Mr. Outten is not creating content - the traffic to this site exists BECAUSE of the content FREELY posted by others. There are some modest hosting costs (this is not a large forum in the context of large forums) and maybe occasional legal and IT fees.

You mentioned how lucky we are, as he is delaying further raising the prices to fill the shortfall.... That means that the $6 is going to become $7 or $70 --- whatever. The reality is that due to the principles in play here, the shortfall will increase as more people become frustrated and flee or refuse to participate, prompting even less advertising and revenue, more "pay to see" content and an even larger shortfall and higher subscription prices.

The simple fact: The decision to hide member contributed content (be it only images at this point) behind a paywall, especially content that when posted was FREE, is antithetical the very essence of what made this forum viable in the first place. If the advertising model is not paying the bills, taxing the user is certainly not going to make the situation better in the long run. Ask photobucket how holding forum posted images hostage behind a paywall worked!

While I don't have an answer, I don't see this model panning out, as there are several other well traveled forums in this niche that are do not hide content behind a paywall. So yeah it is "just $6" but that is $5.99 more than the most the of the traffic is likely willing to pay.

Simply put , if the advertisers are not paying the bills and voluntary donations are not bridging the gap, then the traffic simply does not support the existence of this site.

And then if Keith desires to continue with SMC, continue to put up the work, put up with the personal attacks, and endure the criticism from those who contribute little other than criticism, he will convert to paying members only. Some people actually contribute information and monetary support. Others, well they take information and claim they don't believe in supporting the organization because they are providing the information. With 10 posts in 9 years, I'd suggest not much information has been contributed but certainly criticism is at least 10% of what someone believes is their contribution. This argument is less than honest or sincere, IMO.

[Mel Fulks]

Try that "providing content" with the phone people.

[Frederick Skelly]

Most of the dissent is not actually driven by "it has to be free" or the "small cost". I think you will find those complaining are complaining due to the principles at play here.

Mr. Outten is not creating content - the traffic to this site exists BECAUSE of the content FREELY posted by others. There are some modest hosting costs (this is not a large forum in the context of large forums) and maybe occasional legal and IT fees.

You mentioned how lucky we are, as he is delaying further raising the prices to fill the shortfall.... That means that the $6 is going to become $7 or $70 --- whatever. The reality is that due to the principles in play here, the shortfall will increase as more people become frustrated and flee or refuse to participate, prompting even less advertising and revenue, more "pay to see" content and an even larger shortfall and higher subscription prices.

The simple fact: The decision to hide member contributed content (be it only images at this point) behind a paywall, especially content that when posted was FREE, is antithetical the very essence of what made this forum viable in the first place. If the advertising model is not paying the bills, taxing the user is certainly not going to make the situation better in the long run. Ask photobucket how holding forum posted images hostage behind a paywall worked!

While I don't have an answer, I don't see this model panning out, as there are several other well traveled forums in this niche that are do not hide content behind a paywall. So yeah it is "just $6" but that is $5.99 more than the most the of the traffic is likely willing to pay.

Simply put , if the advertisers are not paying the bills and voluntary donations are not bridging the gap, then the traffic simply does not support the existence of this site.

Seems like we have to keep rehashing this every time that some member who signs on once every 6 months realizes things have changed and wants to argue about it. Mr. Burnett, we talked about this months ago and everything said above was discussed at length, then. Please search the archives and catch up on the whole story before you throw rocks, give us your opinion about Keith's business costs or talk about "principles". It's all been discussed, I assure you.

And I'm sorry to be mean, but the "principles" argument (in the context of SMC) is far more credible when voiced by someone that has actually contributed a couple hundred posts worth of content over the years. As Ken pointed out, with just 10 posts in 9 years, it's a safe bet that you got more out of lurking here than you've contributed.

Fred Skelly