Plan Storage Area

[Lee Schierer]

The earlier post requesting plans for a golf stand started me to thinking. What if we could create a place at SMC where people with dimensioned drawings or personally created plans could post the plans as files that could be searched and down loaded. Members could access the site and search for plans relevant to what they are trying to make and down load copies for personal use. Anyone willing to share a plan or drawing could upload the file.

Update:

Contributors was meant to mean people that support SMC with an annual $ contribution.

Plans would have to be the property of the submitter!

Plans would have to be used for non-commercial purposes once down loaded.

Typical Autocad files I make are about 100K, bitmap versions tend to be .5-1 meg in size.

[Bob Michaels]

Great idea.

[Keith Outten]

Great Idea Lee,

We could create a new Forum for plans, drawings and projects.

How many of our Members are willing to upload and share their drawings?
I know that those with laser engravers and CNC routers would benefit from an area that we could share Corel Drawings, CAD Drawings, ArtCam files and even ShopBot control sbp files.

I believe we can setup controls that will prevent unauthorized access to the new Forum, if this isn't something we would prefer to share with Guests.

.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

I think it is a great idea, and would be a benefit to the members of SMC, but I voted for only letting the contributors at the plans.

I mean really, $6 a year? Download one plan and you have that back in spades!!! :D

At the very least, make it only for members, no guests, but I think it would be a good way to get some to contribute.

Just my two yen's worth ;)

Cheers!

[Bob Childress]

I'm with Stu on this one. :) Let's see, $6.00, that's 2 gazillion Yen ain't it? :D

[Art Mulder]

We could create a new Forum for plans, drawings and projects.

How many of our Members are willing to upload and share their drawings?

I wasn't so sure when I first saw the idea, because I don't often make, or use, complete plans for my projects. However, Keith's comment about extending it to drawings and projects makes it more attractive. Also, I am starting to use Sketchup more and more, and so at the very least I'll have better drawings to share.

But I'm with Stu - can we find a way to limit it to contributors? This is going to bang on the bandwidth. If we start putting the uploaded projects there, those are lots of photos. And plans/drawings will likely included lots of sketchup files, which are going to be a few MB each, or bigger.

I can see this being a big "selling point" for SMC.

I also think that having certain "exclusive privelegs" for contributors will encourage people to make the effort. A nice carrot to dangle...

[tod evans]

well........my "plans" are usually bar napkin sketches or full sized drawings on mdf or ply:o .......but i could see this as a way to help generate some income without using advertisers so i`m all for it!.....02 tod

[Nick Clayton]

I agree with those that replied. It would be a great feature as many members create some amazing piece's that I know I would like to duplicate in design. However, after using the forum for about three months and gaining quite a bit of information from the members I realized that I needed to contribute to support the forum. It's a bit like NPR, you can listen for free, but if you use it often you should support it in the way it supports you. Having a plans forum would invite members to become contributors. It's not like we make money for dividends from the contributions. Besides, I think Keith may need a new server once people start uploading files;)
Just my penny's worth

[Mark Pruitt]

I voted for only letting the contributors at the plans.

I mean really, $6 a year? Download one plan and you have that back in spades!!! :D


Ditto. My sentiments exactly.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Glad to see that some of you agree with me!! :eek:

Just funning ;) :D

I know that if we did this, I would make an effort to keep and make better drawings of projects, that could be uploaded to this new forum. I know they would not be "pro" plans, but they would most likely be enough that someone could print them off and make one too.

For example if you go here (http://www.ablett.jp/workshop/sharp.htm), I have a lot of detailed pics of my sharpening set up and the jig I made for doing bowl gouges.

If I took these pics and added dimensions to them, and people wanted to copy the set up, it would be fairly easy for them to do so.

Just a thought.

Cheers!

[Jeff Horton]

CONTRIBUTORS? Does that mean only if you add a plan you will get access?

Not sure I like that because I rarely draw much more than a sketch with some overall dimensions. Then I do a lot of math in the margins cyfering as I go. Not sure most folks could work off of anything I did.

Being an old draftsman I could do detailed sketches but I have no need for myself.

[Jim Becker]

Jeff, I believe the context of "contributors" is relative to financial support for SMC...kinda a carrot to get to the plans/drawings.

Speaking as a member and contributor, I find that to be a reasonable plan, as it were...a contributing membership benefit.

[Jay Knoll]

I'm with Stu, we need to encourage people to financially support this place as well as participate! Come on, $6 a year is very reasonable

Jay

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Hi Jeff, when I say contributors, I mean the people who donate the $6 to SMC to cover operating expenses.

If you look below my name, it says "2006 Contributor" this means that I paid the $6 (at least) to the site.

Cheers!

[Steve Clardy]

Sure. Contributor access only would be a good idea.
I don't use plans, but the ones that do, it would be handy for them.
I'm like tod on plans.
Any scrap 2x4 or sheet of paper is my plans:rolleyes: ;) :)

[Keith Outten]

We can certainly limit access to those who have made a contribution and I hope it would encourage more Members to support The Creek.

Forums each have their own file size limits, how large should the file size limit be on the new Plans and Projects Forum? We need to be reasonable and consider the impact on our server load as well as bandwidth consumption. If we allow ten meg downloads we will surely have to increase our bandwidth and add another server to handle the load.

.

[glenn bradley]

Keith,
I voted "great idea" and limit it to contributors. ;-)

Would these all be original works?

What are the restrictions in sharing published plans?

As someone else mentioned; good pics of something we've done or as we're doing it can serve a purpose as well.

[Jim Becker]

Glenn, I believe that any plans posted here would have to be the intellectual property of the submitter...sharing of published plans would in most cases be a violation of copyright laws. I hate to say it, but there likely needs to be a TOS addendum where submitters avow that they have the legal rights to post the plans/drawings they submit.

[Ian Barley]

Hi Jeff, when I say contributors, I mean the people who donate the $6 to SMC to cover operating expenses.

If you look below my name, it says "2006 Contributor" this means that I paid the $6 (at least) to the site.

Cheers!
But Stu - if you look below my name it doesn't, although on that basis I am paid up to about 2020. I can't say that this would affect me personally because I tend to not use plans anyway, but if you are gonna restrict to "contributors" then it may be advisable to consider that sometimes circumstances make small regular contributions less practical than larger less regular ones. Just an observation.

[Glenn Clabo]

Great idea Lee. I use plans like I use recipes...just to get the brain engaged.

[Glenn Clabo]

Ian has a good point...how hard would it be to allow something called subscriber vs contributer. Then if someone wants to throw $18 at SMC they can be a 3 year subscriber. Hate to add work though...

[Art Mulder]

how large should the file size limit be on the new Plans and Projects Forum? We need to be reasonable and consider the impact on our server load as well as bandwidth consumption. If we allow ten meg downloads we will surely have to increase our bandwidth and add another server to handle the load.

I don't know if this is enforceable, but I would suggest that each plan or sketchup-file should be accompanied by a modest-sized JPEG file or two that show the result. Then we can encourage people to check out the images first, and only download the larger files if they are serious.

PDF's can have a pretty modest size limit. I have a 91 page user manual on my desktop right now, and it is only 2MB in size. So I don't think PDF's need to be that large.


What about adding this to the proposed Shop Tours "expansion module" of SMC? Or maybe start it here on a trial basis, but if the bandwidth proves excessive, move it to the new planned system?

just thinking out loud

[Dave Hale]

Limiting to contributors is fine by me. Didn't know there was that concept since I haven't read everything on the site and the registration process doesn't mention it. I'd change my vote if I could, but I can't.

Now to find the 'contribution' information. :)

[Jim Becker]

Dave...click on the "Donate" button at the top of any forum to contribute to SMC.

[David Williams]

Wouldn't requiring a paid subscription to the site to access the plans be a violation of the Google Sketchup ToS concerning personal use?

[Jay Knoll]

Jim,

Dave's comment got me thinking about financial support.

Maybe we wouldn't have as many financial problems if the registration screen included something like

Registation is free, but this is a member supported site. Suggested contribution is $6 per year. Click here (donate button) if you would like to contribute.


Jay

[Chip Charnley]

Well, here's my arguement against limiting it to contributers. People like me. I am just not good enough yet to make plans that are worth anything to anyone. So far the couple of projects I have done with some sort of plans I drew up changed so radically during the execution (things gone wrong that had to be fixed and just changes I decided to make in flight) that it will be a long time before I put together something that anyone else can use.

But, and here's the point, that long time will be quite a bit shorter if I have access to plans that fit my needs and allow me to

1) Concentrate on building my skills to the point that I create lots fewer SNAFUS and
2) Allow me to see how others do it and build my design skills by modifiying others plans to fit me needs.

Honestly, I would bet that 50% of the best contributors will have a lot less need for others work than the rest of us "dummies" who ain't so good a drawing plans yet.

Just my 2-bits worth.

Chip

Update: Well, if I read ALL the messages before I responded, I wouldn't have written the above. If contributer means contributing to the financial well being of the creek (which I am ashamed to say I haven't done yet and shall rectify shortly) than I would find it very hard to disagree.

[Lincoln Myers]

I think only Contributors should have access to the proposed plan area. This would be a great incentive to get people to support The Creek. I think this would be a very useful area to many Creekers.

-Linc

[Keith Outten]

OK,

It seems that most agree to limit acces to Contributors.
For the record Contributors means anyone who donates $6.00 per year to help pay the bills at SMC. The $6.00 figure is our suggested donation per year, we felt that even a child could afford 50 cents per month and we wanted to make sure everyone had the same opportunity here.

Only one response on the suggested file size limit, it is 2 meg.
I have been checking some of the files I have and it seems that DWG files will compress to a fraction of their size using a Zip Program. My Corel Draw files are for the most part under one meg. ShopBot SBP files are very small but I don't know what the max size needs to be for Sketchup of if they will compress with a zip program.

All files uploaded must be either original content owned by the Member or the Member must have permission from the owner/author.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

But Stu - if you look below my name it doesn't, although on that basis I am paid up to about 2020. I can't say that this would affect me personally because I tend to not use plans anyway, but if you are gonna restrict to "contributors" then it may be advisable to consider that sometimes circumstances make small regular contributions less practical than larger less regular ones. Just an observation.

And a good one Ian!

I'd say that if you have the "Contributors" handle below you name, no matter the year, you should be allowed in.

Copacetic? :D

[Al Navas]

Great!

I almost missed this thread. I am all for it, too - limited to Contributors.


Al

[Frank Pellow]

It seems that most agree to limit acces to Contributors.
Keith, that appears to be what the majority of folks who have written comments in this thread agree to but it is not what the poll results reflect.

By the way, I am in agreement with limiting access to contributors. We need to come up with incentives to contribute and this is one such incentive. I hope that we can think of more.

[Jeff Horton]

Suggestion -- Why not try the idea but setting up another public subforum for 2-3 months and see how many people actually upload plans. It would give people a chance to see what might be offered and time to see how many people would actually offer plans. It think it is a good idea but just wonder how many plans would actually be offered? As I said, I don't use what most people would call plans.

[Ian Barley]

...Copacetic?... :D

Thanks Stu - I don't have to learn anything else new today!

[Mike Henderson]

I also favor only letting financial contributors access the files (that is, people who make a financial contribution each year to SawMill Creek).

One suggested change to the ownership issue - the owner should be able to designate if they want to put the plans into the public domain.

For example, I'm retired and I don't care who makes stuff from my plans and whether they sell it or not. If I submit any plans, I'd probably submit them as public domain.

Others may wish to retain the copyright and only extend limited rights to others, such as non-commercial use only.

From a programming point of view, it seems that this would only entail a choice from a list when the plans are submitted.

One other issue for discussion - should the submission be forever, or could the person who submits the plans be able to pull them back at some time in the future. The submitter may develop an improved design or may find problems in the original submission. Or they may just decide that they don't want to share any more.

Mike

[Jerry Strojny]

I think this is a great idea. As most things in life I see "good things", and "bad things". "Good things", like getting ideas from others or getting plans as a starting point for my project. "Bad things", like potential copyright issues, or a lot more work for Keith and company)
Personally I would find this a great resource. And limiting it to contributors sounds fine with me. If I were a lurker and wanted to get some plans....I wouldn't blink at spending the $6. It's cheaper than any plans you can buy "off the shelf" and I'd be supporting a great forum and future support for the said project. (IMHO)

[Karl Laustrup]

Great idea Lee. Who knew that something like this would come about after a simple request for some plans for a golf club storage rack. :confused: :o :D And publicly, thanks for those plans Lee.

I'm in favor of limiting access to contributors, however Ian makes a very good point in the manner of the donation.

Karl

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

I think the plan creator should have some compensation. Some $$ also should go to facilitate the bandwidth and Dasdi space.

However, a problem might arise where plans are purchased. I doubt that SMC can safely distribute those.

Some formal procedure regarding ownership of the plans is also important. The creator should not lose control or ownership.

[Frank Pellow]

I think the plan creator should have some compensation. Some $$ also should go to facilitate the bandwidth and Dasdi space.

However, a problem might arise where plans are purchased. I doubt that SMC can safely distribute those.

Some formal procedure regarding ownership of the plans is also important. The creator should not lose control or ownership.
I am not in favour of compensation for the plan creator. It is just another way for members to contribute to SMC. Anyway, I am sure that paying the person who posts plans woould create all sorts of problems for us.

[tod evans]

what the heck......it cost me .02 everytime i give advice now cliff`s wanting to pay folks for drawings:rolleyes: ......i think the coolest part obout smc is everybodies willingness to share knowledge without compensation, besides i`d have to up the ante to 2.00 for folks to stomach my scribbling and i just don`t have the money to spare......02 tod

[Keith Outten]

We don't want to get into any kind of sales program right now, any plans that have serious commercial value probably wouldn't be shared publicly anyway.
I think our Members will help us out and upload their plans and projects knowing that it helps us to pay the bills. Owners of Project Plans should include their copywrite information and details in their document files.

Frank, I'm watching the poll numbers but the first option is a deal killer, how can we increase services without revenue to cover our costs. I'm all for the simple route of encouraging Members and Guests to contribute, this keeps the cost less than one magazine which is a bargain for a years worth of entertainment and information.

.

Our Terms of Service already cover any text or data that is uploaded to our server. Note that according to our TOS the Member retains owership.

B. Licensing

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In each such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

[Frank Fusco]

Great!

I almost missed this thread. I am all for it, too - limited to Contributors.


Al

This would be creating classes of membership. Do we really want that?

And, a paid member might legally have grounds to protest his comments being moderated. e.g. "I paid to be here, you have no right to censure me." I'm just supposin'. Do the owners want to find out the hard way if this is the case? Methinks not.

[Dave Richards]

Wouldn't requiring a paid subscription to the site to access the plans be a violation of the Google Sketchup ToS concerning personal use?

David makes a good point. I don't know the answer. Perhaps since the person who draws his plan in GSU isn't selling the plan, it doesn't matter. Drawings done in Google SketchUp could be banned but there are a number of us who use SketchUp Pro 5 who aren't subject to Google's limitation.

[Jay Knoll]

I'm with Frank and Tod, no reason to compensate anyone for plan submission

Jay

[Karl Laustrup]

While thinking this whole thing over I've come up with another idea.

How about contributors get access to the plans free, while non-contributors could access the plans and pay a fee to do so. Perhaps a small fee to access the pages and then a small fee to download each plan, with all fees going to SMC.

I don't know if all that is doable or not, but it popped into my little pea brain and I thought I'd throw it out here and see if it sticks. :confused: :D

Karl

[John Young]

I am a new member and voted that it is a bad idea. It is not that I do not like the idea of a plans forum. But I think that the SMC community would get better value out of a strictly picture forum. When I am searching for ideas for specific projects, I don't look for plans. I look at pictures and then get on the computer and start drawing things up. On SMC now, you have to search extensively to find posts with pictures of items you are looking for. This could simplify the process and allow people to more readily share photos.
I know this is a little off the subject. I just thought this was a good point to throw it out on the table.

[Frank Pellow]

I think this is a good idea but I have a concern. There is another forum, the one entitled ‘Woodworking Articles and Reviews’ that also sound like a good idea but that forum has very little activity.

Like the proposed ‘Plans’ forum, the ‘Woodworking Articles and Reviews’ forum depends on member submissions. But, in the entire history of Saw Mill Creek only 11 articles have been submitted and during the last year only 3 articles have been submitted.

Why will a ‘Plans’ forum not suffer the same fate?

[Jay Knoll]

Frank

I don't share your concern, let's let the members tell us if the area is valuable by their actions. Obviously the members aren't interested in writing articles/reviews (although I have read some very good reviews in other sections of the Creek that were perhaps miscategorized).

If it isn't a big deal for Aaron to do the programming then let's give it a try!

And maybe it should be plans and projects with lots of pictures!

Jay

[Larry James]

Contributors sounds good - paying for plans bad idea.

I'm sure the majority of SMC members can afford the 6 bucks. However, there are some that cannot. Frank Fusco pointed out in his post (http://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=43680&page=3) - "This would be creating classes of membership. Do we really want that?" I don't. That would be counter to the spirit of SMC.

I'm sure many of us can afford to, and have, donated more than the minimum. Would it be possible for us to earmark part of donations that exceed 6 bucks to cover a few members that cannot donate for some legitimate reason? I know of of one member who falls into this category and I bet some of you do also.

Larry

[glenn bradley]

I have quite a few commercial plans online. Sizes range from 150k to a little over 1 meg. This depends on photos, diagrams etc. Better ones are larger. I tried zipping some to see what the savings in space might be and to see if this is something we might want to require. A 500k .pdf (Adobe) type file was reduced to about 300k so, a reasonable improvement. Hope this helps.

[Larry James]

I think this is a good idea but I have a concern. There is another forum, the one entitled ‘Woodworking Articles and Reviews’ that also sound like a good idea but that forum has very little activity.

Like the proposed ‘Plans’ forum, the ‘Woodworking Articles and Reviews’ forum depends on member submissions. But, in the entire history of Saw Mill Creek only 11 articles have been submitted and during the last year only 3 articles have been submitted.

Why will a ‘Plans’ forum not suffer the same fate?

Frank, you make a good point. Drawing formats may be the "killer" for a plans forum.

After re-reading some of the posts in this thread, there are a lot of drawing formats mentioned. How many members can download and read so many different formats? I can't - would PDF be an option? PDF is available for all common operating systems and free. Would PDF files be smaller? PDF is a format listed in the SMC attachments window. If one needed the drawings in specific format they could PM the author.

Larry

EDIT: Glenn answered part of my question in the previous post.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

This would be creating classes of membership. Do we really want that?

And, a paid member might legally have grounds to protest his comments being moderated. e.g. "I paid to be here, you have no right to censure me." I'm just supposin'. Do the owners want to find out the hard way if this is the case? Methinks not.
Frank we already have a class of membership, you are a member, I'm a contributing member, but, thanks to Keith and Aaron's good will, we have the same rights at SMC, so you point about censure and such is a moot one.

We are talking about expanding the bandwidth and supplying a good service to SMC, this costs money, SMC is not NPR the money does not grow on trees to do this. If you want to think about this in another way, it is a membership drive, like public television has, in this case, pay $6 a year, and you get all these cool, useful downloadable plans, all conveniently stored for you in a special online folder, and with SMC's membership drive, you don't get the annoying commercials in the middle of your threads!!

I think that some of us are over thinking this one, yes the rules about copyright and ownership needed to be clarified, and have been, but really, this is a special corner of the Creek that only the people who support is with a small reasonable donation have access too.

In fact, all of us here at SMC are in a very special class, we all have the time and money to own a computer and to have learned how to use it, this puts us at the top of a class of people worldwide, should we start worrying about that now?? :rolleyes:

I'd be up for supplying the $6 for members who cannot honestly afford the $6 a year for membership, if Keith wants to set that up, a SMC grant of sorts, I'd kick in for that in a heartbeat, as I think SMC is very good at helping out members in need.

Well there you have it, another bit of time wasted :D

Sorry for the ramble......... :o

[Norman Hitt]

Keith, that appears to be what the majority of folks who have written comments in this thread agree to but it is not what the poll results reflect.

By the way, I am in agreement with limiting access to contributors. We need to come up with incentives to contribute and this is one such incentive. I hope that we can think of more.

Frank, I think that the reason that there seems to be a disparity in the poll results, is that many who voted thought that "Contributor" meant that only members who "Contributed Plans" to the site would have access. It probably should have been worded "Financial Contributors" in the poll and would have probably shown much different results.

I also think that it should be restricted to "Financial Contributors", (and am still really amazed that there are so many members that haven't contributed at least a Pittance to help support such a fantastic forum). I know there probably should be a mention of contributions at the Registration site, and that would probably help the matter quite a lot. I also think that the suggested $6 figure could be mentioned, BUT it should also state that larger donations would also be graciously accepted.

[Vaughn McMillan]

Sorry, comments withdrawn. They were directed to people who were not going to read them anyway.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

I'm a member of some other forums, nothing to do with wood working, like motorcycles, for example. Most of these forums have things set up so that "Guests" (those that come and look but do not register) can see only the text, not any pics, this saves them a TON of bandwidth from "lookyloos", becoming a member is free, you just need a legit e-mail address.

These same forums usually have a "Financial Contributors Only" section, in the bikes case, this is the "Best of Threads" where the best touring threads are moved to, once they have decided a thread rates that high, and they have an info forum, that is of all the kinds of things that constitute a knowledge base about bikes kind of thing, this is a VERY bandwidth heavy forum too, as it has lots of pics, scans of bike exploded diagrams, etc. Lastly the other forum they have for "Financial Contributors Only" is the classified, if you don't become a "Financial Contributor" then you cannot post there. This gives an advantage to sellers, as they reach a wide audience, of buyers, who can look, but have to contact the seller via PM.

These sites are all about $5 a year, and they survive nicely.

Just some insights into how other group sponsored sites are run, and run well.

Cheers!

[Keith Outten]

Stu,

The suggested donation of $6.00 per year is reasonable as you point out and if enough of our Members would donate anything our ability to grow and add new services like the Project Plans Forum would improve considerably.

If you visit our Laser Engraving and CNC Forum you will notice lots of drawings and artwork that has been uploaded by our Members. Some of the Corel Draw drawings have been very beneficial, especially to those who are just starting out and haven't had the time to build their graphics libraries. We have poems and prayers plaques in our archives and plenty of support files for engraving and routing. I would like to see us expand on this type of service with complete projects and pictures and eventually an index page that will make it easier to find a particular project.

A Community of this size could produce an amazing library of project drawings in a very short time. If each Member shared just one Project our Forum would be a very valuable resource for everyone in no time. The Project Plans Forum would be visable to everyone, the file attachments would only be accessible to Contributors.

Frank, it is unlikely that our Project Plans Forum could stand on its own and survive given the resources it takes to host such a graphic intensive project. Our new Forum will not be a stand alone entity and our survival will not depend on distribution of drawings and projects. Ours will be a new service that fits our Community and adds value like any other Forum here.

The new Project Plans Forum is the kind of project that I would like to see included in our Forums as we continue to grow. I am convinced that we need to continue to expand our services to the Woodworking Community by adding new features that are valuable when they fit our needs. The fact that this was one of our Members ideas is icing on the cake if you will, there are plenty of great ideas that our Members contribute each year...this one is within our range to accomplish right now.

.

[Frank Fusco]

With two Frank's here :eek: , I should clarify, my post was #42.
I should futher clarify that often when I post thoughts like I did there, it is not always an indication of my position on an issue. As a writer and former newspaper opinion columnist, I have been called a "catalyst". I'll take it as a compliment. Tossing out the idea we might have 'classes' of membership is fodder for thought and debate. I don't know if it is important or not. The notion that contributing might create a vested interest and potential legal problems for a privately owned forum is an unanswered question. The e-world is a black hole we have not yet completely explored.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

what the heck......it cost me .02 everytime i give advice now cliff`s wanting to pay folks for drawings:rolleyes: ......i think the coolest part obout smc is everybodies willingness to share knowledge without compensation, besides i`d have to up the ante to 2.00 for folks to stomach my scribbling and i just don`t have the money to spare......02 tod

Awwww you guys just want to freeload off my plans to turn moldy old sawdust into 24 Ct gold and diamonds.

[Scott Coffelt]

I'll take a little different approach than the norm. Me personally, I am good with whatever the game plan is. Keep in mind there are those out there with not much in the way of extra funds. Sure would be a shame to exclude folks who maybe just can't afford to make donations, though they may in spirit or what not. Many of us can afford to give more cause we can, others just can't because for them it may be not buying some wood or something. I know for most of us $6 is not much but for some, it's everything. So just keep those thoughts in mine.

[Art Mulder]

I'm a member of some other forums, ...
These sites are all about $5 a year, and they survive nicely.


I'm in full agreement with Stu. And I think everyone should take a second look at his comments, as he hits all the points. These other websites are doing exactly what we're discussing, and it works well.

best,
...art

[Jay Knoll]

Keith

Let's stop talking and get this thing going! Sometimes we beat an idea to death and then drive a stake through its heart just to make sure! LOL

Seriously, the only thing that I think we need to deal with is the intellectual property rights/copyright issue and there must be a few lawyers that hang out around here that could help us with that question. (I'm assuming that the programming to make it members only isn't going to be a big deal, but what do I know?)

Jay

PS Stu thanks for your cogent summary, you need to bottle some of that dungeon air and send it over here to clear our collective minds. :D

[Frank Fusco]

I'll take a little different approach than the norm. Me personally, I am good with whatever the game plan is. Keep in mind there are those out there with not much in the way of extra funds. Sure would be a shame to exclude folks who maybe just can't afford to make donations, though they may in spirit or what not. Many of us can afford to give more cause we can, others just can't because for them it may be not buying some wood or something. I know for most of us $6 is not much but for some, it's everything. So just keep those thoughts in mine.

Actually, I like the idea and really am not opposed to being part of a sponsorship.
The $6.00 isn't a big deal. But, as I said in another thread on the contributor thing "enuf is enuf". Of the three main woodworking/turning forums I belong to, all seek funds to keep going. One is reportedly making a nice fat profit for the owner. :eek: (not SMC). I belong to a number organizations, dues range from $5.00 at year to $155.00. Most come due in January and I cannot pay all at once because the total exceeds what I can pay all at once. That said, $ix bucks isn't much, I waste that much every day. If the plan storage thing comes to reality, I'm sure I'll kick in.

[tod evans]

frank, lots of us here kick in a few bucks just to have the venue to chat with other woodworkers...........nothing else expected..02 tod

[Jay Knoll]

Frank

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Keith and his team made a profit from this, if I don't think I'm getting value then I won't subscribe or participate. But heck, it is worth the price of admission to learn from the likes of Tod, Mark, Jim, Justin, and to watch Stu's antics in the dugeon, and to learn from Bob S and Tyler and John M and Ian and Zahid and that guy in Poland (I think) whose name I can't remember and everyone else that posts.

So how, in a land far away, someone came up with the idea that the internet was free. WRONG! We've got to pay our way and if we don't give Keith a way to maintain the economic viabilty of this place then he has to decide if he wants to run a charity. I hope he is never faced with that decision!

Call me a red blooded capitalist, but I believe that people actually appreciate something more if they pay for it! I know I read the magazines/newspapers that arrive at my door that I subscribe to and I throw away unread the ones that just show up.

Jay

[Lee Schierer]

Contributors sounds good - paying for plans bad idea.

I'm sure the majority of SMC members can afford the 6 bucks. However, there are some that cannot. Frank Fusco pointed out in his post (http://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=43680&page=3) - "This would be creating classes of membership. Do we really want that?" I don't. That would be counter to the spirit of SMC.

I'm sure many of us can afford to, and have, donated more than the minimum. Would it be possible for us to earmark part of donations that exceed 6 bucks to cover a few members that cannot donate for some legitimate reason? I know of of one member who falls into this category and I bet some of you do also.

Larry


Instead of down grading your donation or trying to split it up, if you are aware of someone who can't afford the $6 bucks, then send in a gift in that person's name and the problem is solved. I did a quick internet search for plans and most plans sell for $15-25 per set some even add shipping and handling. Now they may be considerably more detailed that what you will find here, but there is a significant price difference too and they charge per each, SMC gives you all you want for $6 per year.

Personally I would prefer CAD files because I can then alter them to suit my needs instead of starting from scratch. I also don't have the ability to produce PDF files.

[Chuck Hanger]

I vote for the $6 contribution. Not trying to cut anyone out with $6 per year. After all if you can't afford $6 how would you ever afford the wood for the project if the plans were free?

Just my opinion and that along with $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee at the local "C" store.
Chuck

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Frank
Call me a red blooded capitalist....................

Jay

OK......"Jay, you are a Red Blooded Capitalist!"..............


:D

[Keith Outten]

Aaron Koehl was here in my shop last night and we discussed the new Forum. Aaron will have to make a few changes to make things work, it might take a couple of days depending on his workload.

Get your drawings ready!

.

[Rob Russell]

Is there a way to allow people to see what plans have been uploaded without allowing them to download the plans? Perhaps implement the text only view for financial non-Contributors on that subforum. Make it clear that, when adding a plan to that subforum, there needs to be a good written description of what the plan is for.

This way anyone could see what is in the plan subforum, but can't actually see the plans unless they're a financial contributor.

[Jay Knoll]

Keith

That's great! This should be a wonderful addition to the Creek!

Jay

[Mark Rios]

WOW...you folks actually right stuff down?

Maybe that's why my projects take so long. I should give it a try. :D

My vote is for contributing members as well.

[Frank Fusco]

Jay said: "Frank

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Keith and his team made a profit from this..."

I don't have a problem with that as long as the intent is stated up front. e.g. "This forum is a business and we charge you so we can make a profit." That's free enterprise.
But, the OTHER forum I was alluding to pretends to be going under while those who are acquainted with the owner know he is making fat profits while crying poor.
I'm less concerned with the $6.00 thing than I am with creating classes of membership.
Also, it could have an effect contrary to the stated purpose of SMC even existing, the sharing and free flow of information.
A new, or seldom visiting member might be dissuaded from returning if he is required to pony up money to visit a certain forum.
I'm 'just supposin' ' here. If it ends up costing, I'm sure I'll pay. This is simply fodder for thought and debate.

[Keith Outten]

Aaron has created the new Project Plans Forum. It is restricted to posting right now as he has to make some adjustments to the Forum setup in the back office.

The Project Plans Forum will be restricted to those with a Contributors Title, either the current year or a new title we are working on for those who have donated a large sum, this will include those who made large donations last October.

Details will be announced ASAP.

.

[Keith Outten]

Jay said: "Frank

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Keith and his team made a profit from this..."

I don't have a problem with that as long as the intent is stated up front. e.g. "This forum is a business and we charge you so we can make a profit." That's free enterprise.
But, the OTHER forum I was alluding to pretends to be going under while those who are acquainted with the owner know he is making fat profits while crying poor.
I'm less concerned with the $6.00 thing than I am with creating classes of membership.
Also, it could have an effect contrary to the stated purpose of SMC even existing, the sharing and free flow of information.
A new, or seldom visiting member might be dissuaded from returning if he is required to pony up money to visit a certain forum.
I'm 'just supposin' ' here. If it ends up costing, I'm sure I'll pay. This is simply fodder for thought and debate.


Frank,

Nothing is really free. Donations to the Creek pay for our bandwidth bills, equipment, software upgrades and a little something to compensate Aaron for his work keeping everything running.

If there is a couple of dollars left at the end of the year possibly I could use it to pay the morgage on SawMill Creek, a personal debt that I assumed last year at the bank in order to keep the Creek online. I think I owe about $13,000.00 plus or minus a few pennies.

It might be a few years but someday I hope to have a clear deed to The Creek :)

.

[Glenn Clabo]

Keith!...Keith!...$13K? AND you sit here defending yourself. We ALL need to talk my friend.

In honor of Jay's post (http://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=44014) I will not comment on other posts.

[Noel Hegan]

Thanks Keith & Aaron, looking forward to it.

Noel

[Frank Fusco]

Frank,

Nothing is really free. Donations to the Creek pay for our bandwidth bills, equipment, software upgrades and a little something to compensate Aaron for his work keeping everything running.

If there is a couple of dollars left at the end of the year possibly I could use it to pay the morgage on SawMill Creek, a personal debt that I assumed last year at the bank in order to keep the Creek online. I think I owe about $13,000.00 plus or minus a few pennies.

It might be a few years but someday I hope to have a clear deed to The Creek :)

.

Keith
You about knocked me over with that revelation. I had supposed that you rented space from some internet provider and that was the extent of costs. Puts a whole new slant on things. As said, I am willing to support, more so now. But I still have concerns about classes of membership, one being more privleged than another, etc. Discouraging new members is also a concern as there is so much out there (the internet) that is free. As said, fodder for thought.
BTW, you are to be commended for what you do. Even though I have philisophical differences with some of the policies, SMC is probably one of the better discussion forums on the 'net.

[Ron Fritz]

I voted yes for contributors, but could go with free access too. Personally I enjoy making my own plans, but I also like sharing them as well. My website has several of my plans for download. You would need some method for labeling plans for easy searching. You will also need a standard for the format the plans could be posted in. This is a great idea.

[Jim A. Smith]

Tell me if my thoughts are correct here.
Hampton Roads Online shut down. SMC was tied into that system, server.
The actual debt was from SMC? or Hampton Roads?

[Keith Outten]

Frank,

Yes, it's true...I am the only one who really pays to visit The Creek and its like having a car payment every month and thanks for the compliment.

I doubt that anyone will really have a problem with the class issue, all our other Forums will remain the same and there hasn't been any dicussion since we started using the Contributors title last year which was supposed to create a problem and it didn't.

Jim,

SMC was owned by Hampton Roads Online (HRO). When HRO went out of business I agreed to assume the company debt in exchange for ownership of SawMill Creek. The debt was from HRO, The Creek never had any bills in those days as HRO provided free bandwidth, admin services and office space for us. SawMill Creek was the only asset HRO had in the end and we had a last minute offer to purchase The Creek that would have resolved all of our debt with a bit left over for our stockholders. When I announced that we were either going offline or would arrange for another company to assume ownership of SMC the response was overwhelming...everyone wanted us to keep running the Creek and John Bailey started a donations drive to raise the funds for our operating costs. So the saga of SawMill Creek continues today and although Jackie and I have some debt Aaron, John and a lot of our friends helped us save the Creek.

Ron,

I don't think there is a standard format for plans. I think you will see Cad drawings, Sketchup drawings, Corel Draw files, Adobe PDF files and who knows what else. We can do something to make searching plans easier, in time we are planing to create a new main menu which will have links to each area of The Creek including our Mentors and Laser Engravers/CNC list. We are accumulating a lot of good stuff and don't want it to get lost in the years to come so we need to think about a master page with links and an announcement window that I have wanted for three years.

.

[Jim A. Smith]

Thanks Keith.
Oh. Plan forum sounds good.

[Keith Outten]

I received an email from Aaron this afternoon. He is working on the Project Plans Forum doing some of the magical software stuff he does to make things work. He gave me instructions not to do anything to the Forum setup in our backoffice. I guess he doesn't want me to wreck it while he is working on the new Forum :)

[Mike Wenzloff]

If there is a couple of dollars left at the end of the year possibly I could use it to pay the morgage on SawMill Creek, a personal debt that I assumed last year at the bank in order to keep the Creek online. I think I owe about $13,000.00 plus or minus a few pennies.
Hi Keith,

I'm still not clear about the financial arrangement here. So is this debt originally from SMC or HRO, which provided SMC free bandwidth?

If SMC didn't have debt as stated just above, it would seem that the incurred debt was other aspects of HRO. Correct? Either way it is commendable. But I am unlear as to which entity incurred the debt before being assumed by yourself personally.

As well, it sounds like the value of SMC has been mortgaged? Or the personal debt is tied to SMC? SMC was mortgaged to pay the personal debt? Or?

I am not inquiring to open old/current wounds. Rather, is this something which a separate funds drive could resolve? But before I would commit financially--something I have chose not to thus far--I would want to know what the entanglements are.

Thank you, Mike

[Keith Outten]

Mike,

When HRO closed it's doors it had debt that I assumed personally in exchange for ownership of The Creek.

SawMIll Creek has no debt and never has.

.

[Hugh Jaskok]

$6 seems like a lot when your posts can be deleted or edited at the drop of a dime.

Just my .02

[Ted Boxman]

There must not be very many contributors as compared to people that have signed up.

[Hugh Jaskok]

That is an interesting observation Ted.:)

[Mike Wenzloff]

Mike,

When HRO closed it's doors it had debt that I assumed personally in exchange for ownership of The Creek.

SawMIll Creek has no debt and never has.

.
Is the idea for the plans area then to basically reimburse you for this expense, as well as its associated costs? I mean, it was beneficent to assume this debt, but I cannot imagine assuming X thousands of dollars altruistically myself.

You also say up above:


Yes, it's true...I am the only one who really pays to visit The Creek...

If the debt was HRO's debt, and SMC didn't have debt--and doesn't per se--wouldn't it actually be true that each of the current and past contributers pays to "visit the creek"?

You assumed the debt of HRO in order to hold the value of SMC for whatever reasons, but the 13k is personal debt in exchange for ownership of an entity which had no debt, ergo you paying on the 13k debt isn't the same as those who contribute directly for the operating costs of SMC, other than I assume you too have contributed to the fund rasiers.

I have no personal issue with making this site pay for itself both through member contributions, affiliations which are fee-based, even advertising [I would prefer non-intrusive advertising, but...].

You are to be commended for such a balancing act. It is one which I wouldn't wish upon anyone.

Clear, open communication; consistency of actions; a willingness to actually listen to even those who disagree; stopping ad hoc, often capricious moderator actions, etc., would go a long way for bringing more people on board for your vision: whatever that actually is.

I think many here have openly supported your actions, some even going so far as to say they don't agree nor understand some of those actions. That should tell you a lot about the character of those, and other, people wanting to see both SMC *and* you succeed.

Take care, Mike

[David Rose]

Stu,

I reread the first couple of posts. It is late, so... Where did you get the $6 figure? Was it just arbitrary or did I miss someone saying "that should cover it" or "help"? I'm not complaining about the amount. I try to contribute more than that anyway. I am probably in the lower income range of members here, but six bucks is pretty cheap for anything nowdays.

I've only bought one set of plans, and those I modified to make them work. But it would be refreshing to me (the ultimate non-designer) to have these available from folks I trust.

If I knew nothing about the Creek, I probably wouldn't contribute just for plans. I would only pay for plans from someone I trusted. So I don't know if this will lead to contributions or not. On the other hand, for folks who frequent our waters, but have not contributed, it might be a good move. We have some of the world's greatest woodworkers here, IMNSHO. I hope this will bring in more income.

I hope some folks get rich off this place, though I doubt that will happen. ;) I consider it a very worthwhile, therefore worth contributing, endeavor. Plus, hard work goes into keeping it going, and very smoothly I must add.

David, another capitalist who is feeling like it's time for another (minor... sorry) contribution


I think it is a great idea, and would be a benefit to the members of SMC, but I voted for only letting the contributors at the plans.

I mean really, $6 a year? Download one plan and you have that back in spades!!! :D

At the very least, make it only for members, no guests, but I think it would be a good way to get some to contribute.

Just my two yen's worth ;)

Cheers!

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

David, I did not come up with the $6 figure, Keith did, I think.

The idea was even a kid on an allowance could afford 50 cents a month for the year.

Don't matter how big or small your donation is.

Cheers!

[Rennie Heuer]

I was one of those who voted "free to all" but I'm beginning to change my mind and am leaning towards "free to contributors". It seems to make good sense to give some additional benifit to those who contribute without constricting the ability of all others to participate.