So, it’s reallllly cool… you send your dirty diapers in and
CLOSED.
I have an impression that you are not a person who has had a managerial responsibility for a private consumer funded oriented entity in a private business. It is very possible I am wrong in my understanding of your writing, but you feel like a person who writes from the B2B or the B2G or the G2G point of view and treat the so called customers, who are not in fact the customers as in a retail meaning but some captive audiences for which the word is used only because of the american management discourse and not from a real sensation, becuase you write about the clients here (the users) as if they are the government or the large company employees.
Why is it the door is closed to the social dialogue? The great speed which all conversations uncomfortable it would seem get closed do not indicate very strongly anything but a fearful closure… The door is closed…
If there is no thing to lose because the parents do not care, why do you shut the door to the discussion? What value is there in that to the clients?
Well, gee, that makes me feel like a million bucks, given that I coughed up $30 for a 2 year membership a couple of days ago.
How 'bout something like “membership dollars make up a small percentage of revenue, but they’re important in keeping us afloat?”
Why? You guys are waaaay too quick to close ATMB threads. If people want to talk about stuff, let them talk and get it out of their systems. It’s better than making them feel frustrated and squelched and/or having them start yet another thread on the same topic. Was it really better to have 4 separate closed threads about the game thread thing?
ETA: And what Ramira said.
Because the reality might be whatever money that goes beyond just keeping the fonts on in this’a’here forum (which is probably tiny) just goes into the coffers of the parent company.
twanging that thread-closing nerve
“Fighting Incontinence, It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought.”
Active Members are the number of accounts of any kind that were logged-in in the last X days where X is field that can be set by an Administrator. I believe that the default for X is 60 days which is presumably what is used here.
A spammer who was quickly banned or a person who made an account to look around and never came back will be an Active Member so long as they did so in the last 60 days.
A dues paying Member who hasn’t read the boards in six months will not be an Active Member.
It’s not a very good metric for much of anything.
I did say – more than once – that member subscriptions are gratefully received. Perhaps I should have said earlier that anyone who does pony up – and for multiple years – is deeply appreciated as a tangible supporter of TSD, that’s great. But there’s not a lot of people making that gesture. The reasons are many and yes, before people start enumerating them, management has not done all it could to help people feel the love enough to contribute.
The point I was attempting to make in this is that any theory that starts calculating member dollars as big revenue to the site is doomed from the start.
As for thread closing, we try to keep conversations from going too far off the original stated purpose. From the forum description:
We’ve always interpreted this as short-term problems that need addressing. Answer the questions, fix the problem, move on.
Somehow, I feel the opposite of deeply appreciated. I made a personal request, and it’s NO SOUP FOR YOU!.
thanks so very much.:rolleyes:
Your contribution is deeply appreciated, but not quite deeply enough to prevent them from referring to it as “trivial.”
Thank you for explaining it more better; you’ve cleared that up nicely. I appreciate it.
Anything for you. 
Threads grow and evolve and wander. They always have. It’s disconcerting to be reading along, and then BAM! Closed! And for what?
It makes me, as an ordinary joe poster feel infantilized. “Mommy won’t let me talk about that any more.” Unless there is a clear need to close a thread, let it run its course.
(This happens in forums other than ATMB also.)
Was that forum description written before or after the edict about not being allowed to discuss mod actions in the Pit?
Perhaps your interpretation of ATMB should evolve in light of the new reality. People will always want to discuss certain things, and you can either squash that discussion like they did at the now conspicuously dead TWoP forums, or you can allow them to have their conversation. Why cause so much frustration when it is not necessary? As I asked above, is it really better to have 4 closed threads on the same topic?
Aw.
Tomorrow’s lottery numbers? 
Yes, I’m aware of that, and I didn’t mean to sound like I’m still bitching about the problem. Measure for Measure didn’t feel like the problems were significant or important, so I was trying to point out why they are, how they affect the morale of the membership.
I agree, it wasn’t my argument. I was responding to the topic started by others that suggested the people who own the site would be annoyed by our complaints about they way they do business.
They may not be leaving the Straight Dope, but they are actively not participating in the Game Room. Numerous posters have said the annoyance has driven them from that forum and they would participate if it wasn’t such a hassle. That is actively chasing away traffic.
Agreed.
I don’t think it’s personal, but it’s a blanket disrespect shown by the resources allocated.
Management solved their problems in a way that they felt best met their needs, not our needs. They gave Jerry a whole other job and left maintaining the SD as a sideline. Then they addressed the hack issue by making him the only one with admin powers, taking away a lot of the daily responsiveness this board has been privy to. That is a dramatic shift in the customer’s feel about the board’s responsiveness. It’s not the fault of our moderators, or even Jerry. Nevertheless, it is real.
“Site it didn’t want” is the way it feels based upon the resource allocation.
Just hush with all your whining or so help me, I’ll use my awesome administrative powers to administer you all to a less than satisfactory outcome!
Where’s a man on a white horse when you need one?
Strange little political science simulacrum going on here.
Why does the horse have to be caucasian ???
People on dark horses have very low chances of success.
Alec Ramsey would beg to differ with you.
No, it’s common. Microsoft purchased Fox Software (FoxPro, Foxbase, dBase II, III, IV) in order to trash it for a competitive product that they had a big stake in already (Access), and expected to sell with a far greater profit margin. It worked. Marketing muscle prevailed over product quality.
Microsoft is well known in the industry for doing this more than once, although I am at a loss to present other examples.
That might not apply in this case. I am only questioning your premise as quoted, nothing more.