What is a subscriber based forum?

[Chris Parks]

We are the product suppliers in a forum, fora were in the initial concept and that concept is still in place for 99% of users to be a free exchange of ideas and a meeting place for those ideas to be shared. It was never meant to be a trade for profit place. Without you and me to contribute the whole thing falls over and for people to contribute and have their product that they have freely given traded for profit is a concept that I and I suspect a whole lot of others can not agree with because they are not going to pay to play. If that profit concept was not present then a lot of us would have no problem. I a a member of a forum that every now and then asks for money, declares how that money is spent and this is a totally transparent process and there s never any discussion of the nature that has happened here. I know the above is a bit radical but it is what is happening. To take a single person for an example if I am and I hope this does not offend him. Derek Cohen puts up content here that any magazine would pay for and does it to share freely with others. I rest my case as further discussion seems pointless.

[Mel Fulks]

I can't think of any useful human contrivance that can run without money. I don't think we can say what a forum is for
or what a piece of paper is for. The cashier never asks me what I'm gonna use the paper for. She knows the transaction
benefits both of us. The mother of a good friend once commented to me about a local restaurant, " The food is good . But
no matter how often you eat there ...they always want you to pay". And THIS forum has never had a fatal stabbing!!

[Keith Westfall]

Hard to tell Chris, what you really want or expect. Let's make it a free forum, pay contributors for their content and then share it with everyone?

A lot (most/many of us) contribute because we know there is value here. A great deal of of good/expert advice/tips are shared here because we want to share within this community. Some of us just take and contribute nothing. BUT somebody has to pay - yet it seems like that is just a terrible thing to do here.

But without the contributors that have helped Keith & Jackie try and keep the ship afloat, we wouldn't be here having this conversation, because the creek would not exist. And THAT is a fact of life.

So if what's here is not for you, then move on. If you weren't stirring the pot, your departure probably wouldn't be even noticed.

A lot of us like what the Creek is - if you don't just head on out and let us enjoy/support/participate or do whatever we want to do here. And we'll do it quite easily without you. Sorry, but that is a fact of life as well.

[Mike Kreinhop]

I appreciate what Keith and the support staff have done to maintain the SMC, and I have benefited greatly from the free contributions of the SMC membership. I would hate to see this site wither away; however, if it did close because of funding issues, I doubt it would be very long before another venue popped up to replace it or membership shifted to other sites, such as the wonderful Australian site that must not be mentioned here.

I am not an IT expert; however, I have designed, built, modified, and maintained data centers and server farms worldwide for my employer. I currently own one specialty, yet obscure, website and previously owned an active photography website. There is no way I would even remotely consider trying to duplicate the equipment, bandwidth, and logistical tails that go with maintaining a single server when there are companies that do this much more efficiently and less expensively than I could. This certainly wasn't always the case, but in the past ten years, the cost of setting up and maintaining a website with active hardware and network management has become nearly trivial. I've gone through two hardware and OS end of life exchanges, and they were almost a yawn fest since the network provider did all of the work for me as part of the low monthly server lease. Work smart, not hard.

At the same time as the hardware upgrades, I migrated the website software from vBulletin to Xenforo without any issues; although this did take a lot of planning and behind the scenes work to ensure the transition was fast and painless for the membership. The downtime for the photography website, which had more content than the SMC, was less than eight hours. For the worldwide membership, the most difficult part was waiting on the new static IP addresses to promulgate through the Internet.

Unless I'm booted off sooner, I'll continue to be a SMC member and Contributor as long as the content is relevant.

[Frederick Skelly]

We are the product suppliers in a forum, fora were in the initial concept and that concept is still in place for 99% of users to be a free exchange of ideas and a meeting place for those ideas to be shared. It was never meant to be a trade for profit place. Without you and me to contribute the whole thing falls over and for people to contribute and have their product that they have freely given traded for profit is a concept that I and I suspect a whole lot of others can not agree with because they are not going to pay to play. If that profit concept was not present then a lot of us would have no problem. I a a member of a forum that every now and then asks for money, declares how that money is spent and this is a totally transparent process and there s never any discussion of the nature that has happened here. I know the above is a bit radical but it is what is happening. To take a single person for an example if I am and I hope this does not offend him. Derek Cohen puts up content here that any magazine would pay for and does it to share freely with others. I rest my case as further discussion seems pointless.

Another way to look at this, FWIW... This forum provides a place to hang out, a place to talk and gather and socialize. A good local pub serves a similar function. But the fellas down at the local sports pub don't try to tell the owner they ought to get their beer for free just because they come in to talk about the latest game/match/fight - or because they share golfing tips with those less capable - etc. And if the local golf pro doesn't want to come by to share, the rest of us will still enjoy the evening. Those conversations are not a product IMO.

I contend we are paying Keith to provide a gathering place. Keith could change it from a woodworking forum to a gardening forum, and another group would probably gather here to share ideas and opinions about their roses and tomatoes - because that is human nature.

Finally, I think people avoid paying because they dont have to - there are plenty of other free sites out there, for now. That is going to change across the board, I think.

Fred

[Jim Becker]

Chris, SMC isn't trying to make a massive profit from "content provided by participants" (paraphrased)...it's trying to pay its bills. That's the bottom line. It's run as a business because it has to be. Jerry is absolutely correct..."there is no free lunch". The costs have to be paid or there is no forum at all. Advertising used to fill that need for the most part, but that's no longer the case for SMC or almost any other online resource. There are different ways to monetize a forum to pay the bills and for those forums that have been swept up by larger firms, that often means selling data and other methods that some will (justifiably) argue are an affront to privacy. Asking for a small subscription fee is much more preferable to that, IMHO. If you don't value this community enough to chip in a very small amount of money to help pay the bills, no problem. We each have to make our own decisions.

I'm not sure what rules you consider "stupid", but this place runs smoother than any other forum I participate in and/or help manage...and those rules were largely developed with significant input from community members years ago. Keith didn't pull them out of his backside. As a result, we have a place where respect is expected, discussion is reasonably organized and there is no tolerance for folks and firms who want to use the community for free marketing. Those rules also help "keep content local" so that the resource grows, rather than pushes folks elsewhere. The relatively few restrictions on certain contentious topics and other things have insured that to be the case.

[Bert Kemp]

Hard to tell Chris, what you really want or expect. Let's make it a free forum, pay contributors for their content and then share it with everyone?

A lot (most/many of us) contribute because we know there is value here. A great deal of of good/expert advice/tips are shared here because we want to share within this community. Some of us just take and contribute nothing. BUT somebody has to pay - yet it seems like that is just a terrible thing to do here.

But without the contributors that have helped Keith & Jackie try and keep the ship afloat, we wouldn't be here having this conversation, because the creek would not exist. And THAT is a fact of life.

So if what's here is not for you, then move on. If you weren't stirring the pot, your departure probably wouldn't be even noticed.

A lot of us like what the Creek is - if you don't just head on out and let us enjoy/support/participate or do whatever we want to do here. And we'll do it quite easily without you. Sorry, but that is a fact of life as well.

We really need a LIKE BUTTON

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I rest my case as further discussion seems pointless.

Without the Creek, or some other website, your product would not be a product. You'd be talking to yourself or to a small local club at best. Typically a publisher has to be profitable or they go out of business. Take Popular Woodworking as one of several magazines who are going defunct.

While I respect Derek's posts here, one example is hardly a vast majority.

I agree with you. Further discussion is useless as you are one who believes they have no financial obligation and the owners of the Creek owe you a place to post.

[Jim Becker]

We really need a LIKE BUTTON

Xenforo has one... We will get there at some point...

[Jon Nuckles]

. . . To take a single person for an example if I am and I hope this does not offend him. Derek Cohen puts up content here that any magazine would pay for and does it to share freely with others. I rest my case as further discussion seems pointless.

Hmmm. I recognize Derek Cohen's name and associate it with many valuable posts. I note that he IS a contributor. I don't recognize your name, Chris. Not saying you haven't posted valuable things, but they haven't made an impression on me. Maybe you post in areas that I don't follow closely. Anyway, the irony of your example did make an impression.

[Larry Frank]

I like the Creek the way it is and consider it a bargain and need to up my contribution. Chris Parks has made his point several times and I disagree with him and wish him well at whatever forum he picks.

I would like to say that Derek Cohen is one of the best in all forums that I belong. He has great technical expertise and shares it. I am not a hand tool woodworker but appreciate his point of view. He has kindly answered answered questions when I have messaged him.

[Wayne Watling]

Is there any published info on actual costs, what they entail? Viewing the costs could actually help people pay a small yearly fee.

[Peter Rawlings]

I can hardly believe these threads about costs to user drag on and on and on....sheesh!

One could argue principle, which seems to be the heart of the controversy, but to what end?

Seems to me it's about a value assessment, just like many things in life. If one doesn't think what's available is worth the money spent, then don't spend it. Simple.

When the time comes that we all pay-to-play, the path should be clear based on value to you, an individual decision. That's not being cavalier, it just cooks it down to the essence of the subject at hand.

[Bill Space]

Oh my, did my original post open a can of worms???

Anyway, SMC is a very good place. Except for maybe one person, most feel that way I bet.

Years ago, I was an avid home brewer of beer. There is a forum called the Home Brew Digest. It still exists.

The owner/operator soon set it up as a non profit corporation, for reasons Keith has expressed previously. There was a time when they needed donations to keep the site operating. I ponied up as did many others.

What is perhaps unique about that site (see for yourself at http://www.hbd.org/hbd-finances/) is that an itemized listing of all income and expenses is published for all to see. The record is there from inception in 1997 until the current time.

So the HBD is completely transparent as far as financial needs go to keep the site operating. Interestingly, it looks like they have been in the red for the last couple years. I only looked because I remembered the way they operated. I have not brewed my own beer for over ten years, so I don't visit the site anymore...shedding a tear now...

I think part of the issue here at SMC with respect to contributions may be that people are perceiving SMC as a business, where it may not actually be a business. There are legal concerns/reasons to incorporate. This may have nothing to do with turning a profit or putting money in Keith's pocket.

People are frequently suspicious, and calling SMC a business may actually be a misnomer that turns some people off. My guess it is not a profit making business. But who knows? Looking at the HBD published finances, they obviously are not a profit making business.

SMC is somewhat unique in that they require a person to post under his own real name. This is probably to encourage posters to be civil, and treat others here as they would if they were talking face to face. I can relate to that.

But there may be some posters who do not wish to post on the internet under their real name (And joined here under a pseudonym). If this is the case, and I am only speculating, how could such a poster contribute without divulging his real name? Perhaps this inhibits contributions to some degree.

Just as a personal question , as I think I may have mentioned in a post above, what is the adversity to advertising? I understand the add blocker issue. But there must be ways around it. Keith mentioned a third party that could generate income, but he is against using them. His decision, end of story.

I keep thinking that a forum should grow rather than shrink. My fear is that moving to a subscription only forum will significantly reduce participation, perhaps causing a downward spiral from which recovery will be difficult.

Bill

[Bill Carey]

We really need a LIKE BUTTON

2nd that.
2019-03-28_17h45_17.jpg