Contributor
Originally Posted by Keith Outten
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.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
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.
Moderator
So, Harold...you've been a member since 2014. Why not become a subscriber yourself? What's kept you from that? Six. Bucks.
--
The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...
Contributor
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.
Member
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.
Contributor
+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.
Member
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.
John T.
Contributor
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
Last edited by Frederick Skelly; 05-11-2019 at 1:57 PM.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
“If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”
Guest
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.
Contributor
What is more childish John, everything is free or you get what you pay for?
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
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.
John T.
Contributor
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.
Last edited by Ken Fitzgerald; 05-11-2019 at 4:49 PM.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Contributor
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.
Contributor
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".
Contributor
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...
Posting Permissions
