SDMB service update

[Ed Zotti]

Just wanted to give you an update on the dismal SDMB service situation. As many of you know, we upgraded to the newest version of the vBulletin message board software a few weeks ago. The upgrade proved unexpectedly buggy - one of our IT guys found 20,000+ error messages in his mailbox one morning. We were obliged to implement an automatic system reset every few minutes simply to keep the board running at a minimal level. We recently installed a new code release and it appears the worst of the problems have been resolved, although we continue to watch closely.

Even if the code were completely bug free, however, service would still be slow. Our company's comm capacity is maxed out between 10AM-4PM Central weekdays. Most of the traffic is generated by the SDMB. The heavy usage is having an impact on our ability to do other work. The present situation is untenable and changes are in the offing. We will post additional information soon.

[imthjckaz]

So, is this the heads up for the possibility of the SDMB becoming a $Pay to Post$ board?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Or, the end of the SDMB? :eek:

[Zigarre]

Wake up call here!

Or, the end of the SDMB

$Pay to Post$ board

Fellow members. I think you have totally misread Ed’s message. Reading between the lines it is clear that Ed is explaining a problem that will be addressed in the near future. The problem is traffic, and the solution is reduction in traffic. The answer needs to e forthcoming on our part, or we will force the Reader to consider options that they would rather not consider.
Ed stated.
Our company's comm capacity is maxed out between 10AM-4PM Central weekdays. Note the “Our Company” in the message. His message reflects the problems the Chicago Reader is having due to the SDMB traffic on his system, during specific working hours.

Perhaps I can suggest a workaround that can resolve this problem, with no cost the parties in implementing or enforcing it.

During the hours of 10AM to 4PM, weekdays, we voluntarily refrain from accessing the board. We ask the mods and admins to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts and post the results on a weekly basis. Once the Reader has had an opportunity to evaluate their comm. capacity for a period of time, the access policy can be adjusted and formalized,


Other ideas anyone?

[Hilarity N. Suze]

A reduction of traffic? The recent "upgrade" has certainly reduced my traffic. From daily to once a week, and nobody answered my question, either. Not one response.

[Ringo]

I don't think a voluntary reduction is a viable idea. I don't know how long you've been reading the board Zigarre, but a thousand ideas have been bounced around here about how the board might survive the Reader's potential decision that life support must eventually become self-sustaining.

The two ideas that seemed to dominate previous discussions were a.) make the first XX number of posts free, and then require paid subscriptions to post (my least favored) or b.) offer a paid premium services level where one can register and post without paying, but things like search access would only be available to subscribers.

I suppose another possibility, if the board's traffic is threatening the Reader's ability to communicate during the business day, would be to just shut it down during those hours. Well, we have overlapping communities of posters here, and cutting out the board's availability during its prime time seems about as sure a way to kill it as any other.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I don't think a voluntary reduction is a viable idea. I don't know how long you've been reading the board Zigarre, but a thousand ideas have been bounced around here about how the board might survive the Reader's potential decision that life support must eventually become self-sustaining.

The two ideas that seemed to dominate previous discussions were a.) make the first XX number of posts free, and then require paid subscriptions to post (my least favored) or b.) offer a paid premium services level where one can register and post without paying, but things like search access would only be available to subscribers.

I suppose another possibility, if the board's traffic is threatening the Reader's ability to communicate during the business day, would be to just shut it down during those hours. Well, we have overlapping communities of posters here, and cutting out the board's availability during its prime time seems about as sure a way to kill it as any other. Zigarre's been reading and posting under at least two other names, both of which were banned. As is his current name.

The board is at just about max most of the time now. We're gonna have to do something. Watch this forum for future announcements.

[shijinn]

... or b.) offer a paid premium services level where one can register and post without paying, but things like search access would only be available to subscribers. or c.) turn off all search functions during peak hours.

[DirkGntly]

Actually, if it's a comm problem, even limiting search functions won't help; the basic problem is too many users consuming too much bandwidth. The only solution is to reduce the number of users. If the SDMB becomes a pay-per-post board, or a yearly subscription board, or somesuch, then several things will happen:
1) the number of users will immediately be reduced
2) the Chicago Reader will receive remuneration to offset the bandwidth costs involved (it is up to the CR if the fees they incur will be adequate to actually curtail the costs 100% or even pay for additional bandwidth - it's their board, they should do with it as they please and charge as they feel appropriate)
3) the "tone" of the SDMB will change, probably for the better. At the very least, the amount of "static" in the forums will be significantly reduced. Typically, when a resource begins to cost something to the user, the user makes sure the resource is used more wisely.

It would be interesting to see which type of poster would scream the loudest about a subscription scheme - but my opinions on which way they would lean politically, and from which countries they would hail would best be left to GD or The Pit...

...personally, I would welcome a subscription method, due to items 1-3, above...

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

...personally, I would welcome a subscription method, due to items 1-3, above... I'd be cool with a subscription fee, too, if it weren't too high. What might be "too high"? Ask me when one's proposed and I have to choose whether to (a) pay up cheerfully; (b) pay up grudgingly; or (c) storm off in a huff. :D

At least a subscription fee should be a great troll-reducer.

[Una Persson]

Any fee of course has to be high enough such that the overhead of fee collection, returns, faked/stolen CC's, CC and Paypal charges, etc. and all related grief is covered. So there is a net profit. That seems a little hard to gauge as an outsider, and I think only the Reader Staff know their own situation well enough to say what it is. When I looked into it to help out a similar site that was considering a pay option, they ended up choosing $36 p.a., which was too high and cost them nearly all of their Members. Of 500 active Members, only 20 or so bought in. Switching to $20 p.a. made a huge difference - more than 250 people did that. But going down to $12 p.a. the next year only increased it to about 275. These things seem to follow some sort of odd curve, as there is a momentum involved and several human factors issues.

I'm not posting that to act like I know anything, but to sort of help explain that there are dynamics involved that are going to be hard for anyone to judge, and they (the Reader) will do the best they can.

[shijinn]

... 3) the "tone" of the SDMB will change, probably for the better. ... (bolding mine) it will surely change, for better or for worse. there's just no way to tell. IMHO fighting ignorance requires constant fresh faces to be..erm, fought. this has probably been discussed many times before, so let's not hijack this update thread. suffice to say, i think this should be a last resort. my earlier post comes from remembering how the board really sped up when the search function failed for some reason or other sometime back.

[liirogue]

I truly hope the board does not become a pay to post, because I simply could not do it. For one, my husband doesn't really like the Dope anyway, and if I had to start paying for it... Second, we don't make enough to where I could justify spending any amount of money on a board subscription.

[bittersweet]

...personally, I would welcome a subscription method...

As would I, for a around $3 per month, simply to help offset costs. Not necessarily for the reasons that DirkGntly mentioned, because those help make the SDMB what it is. I think I'd miss The Pit.

[Q.E.D.]

I truly hope the board does not become a pay to post, because I simply could not do it. For one, my husband doesn't really like the Dope anyway, and if I had to start paying for it... Second, we don't make enough to where I could justify spending any amount of money on a board subscription.
We're talking amounts on the order of perhaps a few tens of dollars per year. Anyone could afford it, if they wished. A couple bucks a week is nothing. I blow more than that on junk food (which I could surely do without).

[liirogue]

We're talking amounts on the order of perhaps a few tens of dollars per year. Anyone could afford it, if they wished. A couple bucks a week is nothing. I blow more than that on junk food (which I could surely do without).

That is not near as bad as I was fearing. I would still have to work on hubby though.

Any idea of when a decision would be made?

[alterego]

I'll pay - just make it Paypal friendly.

[hajario]

Any idea of when a decision would be made?

[** Gratuitous insult deleted -- CKDH ** ]

A few months ago, the Administration posted an appeal in the MPSIMS forum. They explained some of the problems they were having and asked us all to refrain from posting too much. They listed some specific examples such as no more posting parties and to not post as many game threads. While there was a reduction in such nonsense, there may still be too much of it.

I am not a Mod and I don't pretend to be one. I do have some suggestions, as a member, which are not directed at any one person. Keep in mind that the problems that we are having are related to the message board is taking up too much of the Reader's bandwidth and they do not make enough money off of this message board to make it worth it to them.

-Is your post per day average way above the norm? If so, you are most likely taking up more than your fair share of the resource.

-If you're willing to pay a subscription fee, have you purchased any of the books, clothing, mugs, etc. available from the Reader? If you'd be willing to pay, say, $50 for a year's subscription, buy $50 worth of Reader stuff.

-If you can't afford the subscription price, or even if you can, did you ever click on the banner ads that were on the main page? You could have been doing this on a different browser window while a thread was loading. If you spent five minutes or so a day doing this, the Reader would get more revenue.

Just some thoughts.

Haj

[moriah]

This just in:

Rampant speculation that the overloaded SDMB service will became a pay-for service overloads the SDMB service.

Film at 3:20 AM.

[Northern Piper]

Our company's comm capacity is maxed out between 10AM-4PM Central weekdays. Most of the traffic is generated by the SDMB.There's a simple solution right there - shut the boards off from 10 AM to 4PM, and leave them running during the current down time of 3 AM to 4 AM. I find it very frustrating when I want to post in the middle of the night and they're down.

Plus, we'll all be more productive at work, no distractions from our enthralling jobs, our bosses will be happier with us ....

What? Why are you looking at me like that? It's just an idea...



Piper backs slowly out of the thread, whistling nervously.

[milroyj]

There's a simple solution right there - shut the boards off from 10 AM to 4PM, and leave them running during the current down time of 3 AM to 4 AM. I find it very frustrating when I want to post in the middle of the night and they're down.

Plus, we'll all be more productive at work, no distractions from our enthralling jobs, our bosses will be happier with us ....

What? Why are you looking at me like that? It's just an idea...



Piper backs slowly out of the thread, whistling nervously.

I actually agree with this suggestion. Most people probably shouldn't be posting from their workplace anyway. The board would only lose those "freeloaders" who wouldn't pay a subscription in any case.

[Chronos]

Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but...

I presume that there is some level of bandwidth use which the Reader considers acceptable for the board. Is it not possible to simply cap the bandwidth which can be allocated to the board? It seems like that's exactly what needs to be done, no more nor less. Yes, it would mean that the board would be slower during the day, or that users might get occasional error messages telling them that it's too busy and to try again later. But that's a heck of a lot better than not having the boards available at all during the day.

As for subscription options, one thing to keep in mind: An Internet community without newbies is a dead Internet community. It might seem nicer at first, to not have to put up with questions about quackgry and missing ducks and echoing dollars, but just remember that you were a newbie once, too. Now look around at registration dates, and see how many people joined since you've been here. And while longstanding members of this board may consider the place to be worth paying for, nobody's going to poney up a double sawbuck to join a group of strangers.

[Ringo]

Well put, Chronos.

[Eonwe]

I'm kind of curious as to what the Reader's goals/mission is for the SDMB. They are providing this place free of charge. To what end? To further Cecil's divine mission to fight ignorance? To further their own publicity and reputation? To give a few IT guys with too much time on their hands something else to do?

I think understanding why the Reader maintains this board in the first place would be a great starting place as far as understanding where the board will be in the future.

[alterego]

Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but...




Chronos that would simply be frustrating (was is the boards current state). You have to keep in mind people like myself that don't have a lot of time to sit around waiting for pages to load, and then possibly fail loading. I would be happy to pay a fee. It's the natural thing...I pay for services that I am provided all the time!

[TeaElle]

I actually agree with this suggestion. Most people probably shouldn't be posting from their workplace anyway.
The only problem is that 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. US central standard time isn't during the working day for all Dopers (European and Antipodean Dopers especially) and that there could well be a number of Dopers who can only access the boards from work and do so with their employers sanction. While such a move may be necessary to preserve the CR's bandwidth, it should be realized that it would effectively cut off the participation of many people, for a variety of reasons, and it should never be presumed by any third party that they're inappropriately posting from work.

The board would only lose those "freeloaders" who wouldn't pay a subscription in any case.
Similarly, I think it ill-advised to suggest that only "freeloaders" wouldn't pay a subscription. More than a few Dopers have posted publicly about their employment and financial woes, and there are certainly others who have never spoken about that issue, but would also find themselves barred from participating if a subscription became necessary, simply because of their financial status. It would be a crying shame if some of their voices were silenced because of money.

I want to see the CR able to maintain the servers, certainly. I'd hate to do so at the expense of Dopers who are in divergent time zones or don't have the cash to pony up for something as enjoyable but ultimately unnecessary as a message board.

I'd also hate to see what happened on another popular board I monitor, when it went pay-to-post. Someone opened a "Too Poor to Pay" thread and people who were facing with the loss of their access posted what they thought were goodbye messages to the community. But other members of the boards Paypaled some (but not all) of the departing members enough money to cover a year's subscription. Those who didn't receive anything as a result of admitting their financial difficulties and couldn't buy subscriptions were left feeling rejected, bitter and hurt when person after person came in and said "thank you to Janie and Muffy and Tom and Brian for sending me enough money to subscribe!" while they twiddled their thumbs waiting for the day they were shut out. It was nasty and awful, and the atmosphere on that particular forum has never been the same despite a continual trickle-in of new members.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

There might be a way to fund it.

Amazon dot com will cut a deal with you. If you set up a special "link" page, that connects to Amazon, then 5% of all purchase funds made by people passing through your site to theirs will accrue to you. That is, we Dopers would go to a page, click on it, get transfewrred to Amazon, & anything we buy there, the SDMB would get 5% of the cash spent on Amazon in those transactions.

Here's an example, hooked up to the Sluggy Freelance webcomic site.

5% Amazon Link Example (http://sluggy.com/amazon/buyabook.html)

With all the dough Dopers spend on books, it's a shoo-in to pay the Board expenses!

[Shrinking Violet]

We're talking amounts on the order of perhaps a few tens of dollars per year. Anyone could afford it, if they wished.

I have to take issue with this .... for a family on a tight budget it could come down to spending those "few tens of dollars per year" on a SDMB subscription or a child's christmas present ....

Many times it has been suggested here that voluntary subscriptions are the way to go, and I totally agree with this ..... but the reply is always that the CR cannot accept these due to "legal" problems. In that case, are mandatory subs even an option?

My favourite idea so far came from Chronos:

I presume that there is some level of bandwidth use which the Reader considers acceptable for the board. Is it not possible to simply cap the bandwidth which can be allocated to the board? It seems like that's exactly what needs to be done, no more nor less.

I hope a solution can be found .... I may not post too much, but being housebound disabled the SDMB keeps me informed and entertained for a large part of the day. :(

[Shrinking Violet]

My favourite idea so far .....

Until, that is, I read Bosda's simulpost! Of course! I used to frequent a message board which was saved by using the "Amazon link" .... why didn't I think of it? :rolleyes:

[Jonathan Chance]

I don't know if it's technically feasible but during peak hours the software could only accept posts and search from paying members and off-peak could allow free access. That might help.

Or even tie membership into a premium. Buy a membership, get an item of SD stuff along with your membership. I've been in circulation/marketing for 10+ years and I've had great luck with such programs.

Heck, I'm designing one right now for my new gig.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Until, that is, I read Bosda's simulpost! Of course! I used to frequent a message board which was saved by using the "Amazon link" .... why didn't I think of it? :rolleyes:

Maybe because I am the living embodiment of the Confucian ideal of a Superior Gentleman, and you aren't? <BELCH>

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Any fee of course has to be high enough such that the overhead of fee collection, returns, faked/stolen CC's, CC and Paypal charges, etc. and all related grief is covered. So there is a net profit.

I'm glad you reminded people that there are costs associated with collecting the money. However, it occurs to me that there doesn't need to be a profit. A fee requirement might be less about generating revenue and more about reducing the number of users. If it works to make usage more manageable, then it's done its work even if it never brings in a dime.

Finding the right "price" to accomplish this is still as challenging as you've drawn out, of course.

[davidm]

Maybe they could do what salon.com does. To get into their premium areas you have to do one of two things:

1. Buy a subscription. This gives you full access for the length of the subscription.

Or

2. Click on a link and watch a multimedia ad presentation. Once you've watched it, you have access for that day.

I'm pretty sure that most of us would be willing to sit through 1 or 2 minutes of an advertisement to get 1 days access to the SDMB.

[Noone Special]

Any fee of course has to be high enough such that the overhead of fee collection, returns, faked/stolen CC's, CC and Paypal charges, etc. and all related grief is covered. So there is a net profit. Shouldn't it be possible to deal with all these issues using mechanisms already in place in the "buy stuff" section of the site?

I mean, the CR already sells stuff on the boards. Why not make the subscription just another one of the items the online store offers?

Dani

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Amazon dot com will cut a deal with you. If you set up a special "link" page, that connects to Amazon, then 5% of all purchase funds made by people passing through your site to theirs will accrue to you. That is, we Dopers would go to a page, click on it, get transfewrred to Amazon, & anything we buy there, the SDMB would get 5% of the cash spent on Amazon in those transactions. That's a great idea! Lord knows I spend plenty at Amazon.com.

[Hugh Jass]

Let me be another person to advocate for the Amazon service. I received a large gift certificate for Christmas. I clicked on a link for another site, made my purchases, and I believe their cut was enough to pay for the website for a month or two. Granted, it wasn't a site nearly on the scale of the Dope. But I spend roughly $1000 at Amazon every year (books, music, dvds). That's what? $50 to the Dope from one person? My desire to support the Dope would be enough of a motivator to me, and I'm not one of the hardcore Dopers.

I suppose you could even add premium features to people who donate a certain amount. Assuming it was cost-effective.

[Una Persson]

Shouldn't it be possible to deal with all these issues using mechanisms already in place in the "buy stuff" section of the site?

I mean, the CR already sells stuff on the boards. Why not make the subscription just another one of the items the online store offers?
Sure they could, but like I said, I'm reluctant to speculate too much on a few things because I'm not Reader Staff. There may be a financial "Chinese wall" between the Reader entity and the message board for many reasons, such as liability and/or journalistic influence. I've seen these barriers exist IRL business (especially when I'm invoicing clients, and there just happens to always be some barrier to paying me...) so often that I come to expect them, odd and redundant though they may seem. If there isn't any barrier than what you say is likely true and valid.

[Truth Seeker]

There may be business or "political" reasons not to become an affiliate of Barnes & Noble or Amazon but there aren't any financial ones. The nice thing about getting cash as an affiliate of Amazon or B & N is that you're not asking people to do anything that they wouldn't do anyway. Do you think it's likely that people who visit the SDMB spend at least 20,000 USD on-line for books & DVDs every month? 1,000 USD/month will at least cover the bandwidth and the Reader can by a new server with the extra cash from the Christmas rush.

[Psifireus]

Originally posted by Q.E.D.
We're talking amounts on the order of perhaps a few tens of dollars per year. Anyone could afford it, if they wished. A couple bucks a week is nothing. I blow more than that on junk food (which I could surely do without)

I couldn't come up with an extra $104.00 a year even if I wished really, really hard. So a subscription fee, even one that nominal, would mean the end of the SDMB for me.

Of course, I don't post very often but I read daily and I would miss it should the Board become unavailable to me.

[Tripler]

I'm trying to phrase this gentlly, but I forsee troubles:

If you start limiting posting privileges to those who pay-to-post, I'm afraid the vast differences of opinions on these boards would more or less cease to exist; in essence, you'd be silencing the singlemost greatest thing about these boards--all the people that can either answer a question, foster debate about it, simply lend direction to a question, or even just bring interesting discussion to the table no matter how mundane it is. This board is about fighting ignorance. Stifling the minds behind that battle would more or less kill this board.

Like Chronos says, a board without newbies is dead in the water.

If you absolutely had to, make it $5 or $10 per year, for unlimited posts. But not a pay-per post kind of deal, like DirkGently mentioned. Even with 1,000 adamant posters, that's a few grand for upgrades or maintenance. But please, not a pay-per-post kind of thing.

But I tell you what. If it cost $5 or $10 bucks, I'd "sponsor" two other 'free Dopers' that couldn't swing it for the first year or so. Live 'free' or die! :)

Tripler
Now if you had a bake sale, then I'd be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake.

[dantheman]

You're a good man, Tripler.

[gotpasswords]

Amazon referral?

I like the idea. A lot. Whether or not the CR would go for it is another issue though. I keep buying stuff for myself and for my office, and Amazon kicks some over to the Dope.

If Amazon gave the CR a percentage of the five routers, four toner cartridges, 8 place settings of Fiestaware, two ZIP drives, a DVD player and half a bookshelf full of books, DVDs and software I bought from them last year, they'd have a tidy lump of money on my behalf.

[Q.E.D.]

I couldn't come up with an extra $104.00 a year even if I wished really, really hard. So a subscription fee, even one that nominal, would mean the end of the SDMB for me.
Perhaps my wording was a bit too loose. Based on what I've encountered, plus the info Una posted earlier, I'd expect the fee to be somewhere between $10 and $30 annually. So, really, less than $1 a week.

[Etherman]

Just a question(probably for jdavis), but is the vBulletin software capable of providing differing services to different interfaces on a multi-homed box(with the same content)?

In other words, could I have 2 NIC's, with different IP's and ISP's, and serve them the same content, but under different circumstances? So take the sdmb server, multihome it on 2 ISP's, have one a high bandwidth paid by the users interface, and one unpaid, bandwidth capped interface? Subscribers are allowed the fast interface, others/non-logged-in users the capped connection, but with everyone getting the same content? You'd have to be able to determine who had paid, and what interface they were on, and not serve to non-subscribed people on the subscribed interface, so that might get interesting, but it's a thought.

That way you do bandwidth shaping on the free interface when you need, but subscribers would still get good performance. That would let anyone post, but be an incentive to pay a small bit to improve performance

afterthought: Heck actually you should be able to do it on one interface, with multiple IP's or even alternate ports(in theory, I have no experience with vBulletin).

[Algernon]

I appreciate the update Ed.

I like the Amazon idea Bosda. Seems like there is the potential for a lot of money to be made with only a little effort needed on the part of the Chicago Reader.

As an aside, I don't think there ever was a serious discussion about a pay-per-post. Only a pay for the priviledge to post as many times as you want. Even then, I worry a little about the natural inhibition of new blood with a pay to post scheme. IIRC, there was some discussion about letting people get to say 50 posts before asking them to pay. This might ensure that they get hooked.

[hajario]

This might ensure that they get hooked.

More likely it would ensure that they create a sock once their current user name hit 50 (or whatever) posts.

Haj

[TheLoadedDog]

So how about free to view, $5 to post for the first year, and $whatever after that?

This would not only get people hooked, but also give them time to become known, and to become attached to their username. Coupled with the admins' existing methods of sock detection, I doubt socking would be a serious problem.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

What about turning off certain features?

I'll probably be stoned for this, but you could discontinue e-mail notifications. It wouldn't restrict anyone's ability to post. It might result in the occasional debate dying (because a participant didn't get the email about a reply) but I'd suspect most truly involved people would check back anyway.

I can suggest this selfishly because I've never used this feature.

[Ice Wolf]

I'm with you on that one, CrankyAsAnOldMan. Never used that feature, wouldn't miss it, and I'll paint a target on my T-shirt now for the stoning.

[davidm]

Has anyone read or considered the suggestion I posted above? It seems to have gotten lost in the crowd. No one's discussed it but I thinks it's worth considering. Maybe I didn't explain it well: If you don't want to pay for a subscription then, each day that you want to access the boards, you click on a link and watch a short ad. This gives you full access for one day and the Chicago Reader receives a small payment for showing you the ad. Salon.com does this and it seems workable to me. Maybe it could be done so that you can read threads but can't post or search unless you either pay or view an ad.
Maybe they could do what salon.com does. To get into their premium areas you have to do one of two things:

1. Buy a subscription. This gives you full access for the length of the subscription.

Or

2. Click on a link and watch a multimedia ad presentation. Once you've watched it, you have access for that day.

I'm pretty sure that most of us would be willing to sit through 1 or 2 minutes of an advertisement to get 1 days access to the SDMB.

[DirkGntly]

Hmm...I meant "pay per post" as a generic descriptor for a fee-based-board. I'm really more amenable to the "subscription-per-year" concept. Of course, other fundraising methods are acceptable, too...the Amazon link idea has merit...

[Truth Seeker]

I've just gone and done a bit of market research. I posted a thread in IMHO entitled, "Helping to pay for the SDMB: How much do you spend on books, CDs and DVDs each month?" I bumped the thread once, after it fell off the first page, to be sure it was seen during prime time. It has now fallen off the first page for the second time. N.B. I actually wanted to post in Cafe Society but realized it was sort of a poll.

The results were utterly dismal. There were a total of six responses, two from UK Dopers and one from someone who posted to this thread. Worse, there were a total of only 115 views. For purposes of comparison, a thread about someone's smelly roomate had well in excess of 3,000 views.

The only conclusion I can reach based on this is that the SDMB would not likely raise substantial revenue from an affiliation with an on-line bookstore. Worse, it would not likely raise substantial revenue from a pay-to-post scheme either.

This result seems counter-intuitive to me. There is one possible explanation. The SDMB is really two different boards. There is the MPSIMS/IMHO crowd and the GQ/GD crowd. While MPSIMS and GD types may both spend some time in, say, the BBQ Pit or Cafe Society, it seems likely that few GD posters spend much time in MPSIMS and vice versa.

The MPSIMS/IMHO group may be less invested in the SDMB and, therefore, less likely to be willing to support it. This sort of makes sense given the average effort required for a GQ post vs. the average effort required for an MPSIMS post.

If the Mods permit, I'd like a special dispensation to post a similar thread in, say GD and Cafe Society to test this theory and find out whether these groups are more likely to support the SDMB than IMHO people are.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I was the one who suggested the Amazon link, & I didn't click on that thread.


A better thread title would have helped.

Besides, it was a poor tecnique fpr a survey---people click on the threads they're interested in, & this has no connection as to who reads books, how often, or why.

[Truth Seeker]

Feel free to prove me wrong. I hope you do!

I'm sure I could have gotten more people to click with a sexier thread title but that wasn't the point. If people can't be bothered to click on a thread clearly referencing helping pay for the board just to see what it's about, you have to wonder what else they wouldn't be bothered to do.

I'm sure if you hype it up enough, you can get people to click on a thread -- and even respond -- out of guilt. But that's a one-off behaviour and not indicative of what the long-term response would be. The bottom line is that if 40,000 registered members would be willing to alter their behaviour and make all their on-line purchases through the SDMB, the Reader would have more money than it would know what to do with. If only 40 registered members are willing to do so, it's not worth the effort.

[Diane]

Your inability to pay for your online entertainment isn't the financial responsibility of those providing the entertainment.

If you can't afford the $10-$50 per year, I am truly sorry. I am so sorry, I may help sponsor if it comes to that. What I don't understand are the people who seem to be getting out of joint over the possibility of having to fork over some cash.

How many months or YEARS have you used the SDMB free of charge? How many have NOT purchased books, mugs, or t-shirts? How freakin hard is it to save a few dollars to pay for a place YOU use for YOUR entertainment?

[xcheopis]

... nobody's going to poney up a double sawbuck to join a group of strangers.

I did when I registered at SomethingAwful. Ponied up another $15 for a platinum account (ability to use the search function, PMs, and such) and a custom title.

[II Gyan II]

Your inability to pay for your online entertainment isn't the financial responsibility of those providing the entertainment.

Technically correct but simplistic. If the number of people who can pay for their entertainment isn't large enough that it becomes viable (financially or dynamically) for the entertainment provider, then those able subscribers won't get the entertainment either. So, while it's not the responsibility of the provider to take care of the less affluent, they need to keep it in mind.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Feel free to prove me wrong. I hope you do!

I'm sure I could have gotten more people to click with a sexier thread title but that wasn't the point. If people can't be bothered to click on a thread clearly referencing helping pay for the board just to see what it's about, you have to wonder what else they wouldn't be bothered to do.

I'm sure if you hype it up enough, you can get people to click on a thread -- and even respond -- out of guilt. But that's a one-off behaviour and not indicative of what the long-term response would be. The bottom line is that if 40,000 registered members would be willing to alter their behaviour and make all their on-line purchases through the SDMB, the Reader would have more money than it would know what to do with. If only 40 registered members are willing to do so, it's not worth the effort. Some time ago, Ed conducted a survey, and managed to get quite satisfactory results. So we don't need another survey thread like that.

As for people worrying that the nature of the SDMB will change, yes, it will. It has always changed over time. The nature of the board changed when we were on AOL, and some old timers bemoaned the fact that the "good old days" were gone forever, especially after AOL went fixed-rate instead of hourly rate access fees. When we moved the SDMB onto the Web, there were more people pissing and moaning that the nature of the board would change. Yes, it changed. Some people didn't like the change, and left. Some stayed and complained. A lot of people adjusted to the change, and some even like it. The board by its very nature will always be in a state of change.

I urge all of you to reflect upon the tragedy of the commons. (http://wwwscience.murdoch.edu.au/teach/biotech/tragedy/tragedy.htm)

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I don't know a whole lot (read: anything) about the ways and means of implementing this kind of stuff, but what about a setup that charges users for their rate of posting? You could post, say, once a day gratis, but if you wanted to increase your posting rate above the magic threshold, the subscription fee would kick in. That way, the hardcore of the heavy posters (who I would think would be most willing to pay, generally) could pay their dues and carry on as usual, while the heavy posters who couldn't/didn't want to pay to post could stay active around here. Just not as active. Plus, the idiots would have to make a decision- be idiots less frequently, pay up, or leave. Even socks wouldn't be all that effective.

I think that would help make the tragedy of these commons a little less tragic- the people using up the most resources would be paying for the privilege. Like I said, I don't know if that could be implemented, or even if it would alleviate the problems were it implemented, but there's my contribution.

[II Gyan II]

You could post, say, once a day gratis, but if you wanted to increase your posting rate above the magic threshold, the subscription fee would kick in.

(Great) Debates or GQ (or lmost anything else) wouldn't be very viable then. It would be an unnatural and awkward constraint on flow of conversation. And if someone posts a question to GQ, the person answering, shouldn't be the person paying for the "privilege" of answering.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I don't know a whole lot (read: anything) about the ways and means of implementing this kind of stuff, but what about a setup that charges users for their rate of posting? You could post, say, once a day gratis, but if you wanted to increase your posting rate above the magic threshold, the subscription fee would kick in. That way, the hardcore of the heavy posters (who I would think would be most willing to pay, generally) could pay their dues and carry on as usual, while the heavy posters who couldn't/didn't want to pay to post could stay active around here. Just not as active. Plus, the idiots would have to make a decision- be idiots less frequently, pay up, or leave. Even socks wouldn't be all that effective.

I think that would help make the tragedy of these commons a little less tragic- the people using up the most resources would be paying for the privilege. Like I said, I don't know if that could be implemented, or even if it would alleviate the problems were it implemented, but there's my contribution. I'm fairly sure that the software can't handle any scheme like that. I'm not POSITIVE, but I'm fairly sure it can't.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I'm fairly sure that the software can't handle any scheme like that. I'm not POSITIVE, but I'm fairly sure it can't. Would it be able to handle Bosda's Amazon link idea?

[II Gyan II]

Would it be able to handle Bosda's Amazon link idea?

I would think so. It's just a referral page. Simply place the link in the footer appended to each page.

[dantheman]

Some time ago, Ed conducted a survey, and managed to get quite satisfactory results. So we don't need another survey thread like that.

As for people worrying that the nature of the SDMB will change, yes, it will. It has always changed over time. [/url]

If it has always changed, why wouldn't you need another survey? There's no guarantee that you'd get the same results.

[C K Dexter Haven]

OK, so once again, we have a simple statement by Ed and then two pages of wild speculation, creative ideas, and whatnot. Then arguing over whether this idea or that idea will work or won't work.

Enough. Re-read Ed's statement that initiated this thread, and take a deep breath or two, and await developments.

hajario, this is NOT the forum for gratuitous insults. Your comment (way back when and early on in this thread) was uncalled for, and certainly does not belong in this forum. Our normal moderating instructions are to simply delete the whole post. I was tempted to do so, I'm not sure why I didn't.