I’d be quite prepared to never think again about avatars if we could embed images in posts - really, avatars are just fluff, image embedding is useful - I very often find myself linking to a diagram or picture I’ve created to explain something, but linking to it isn’t nearly as good as being able to drop it into the text and say “See that bit?” or “like this”.
I know there’s potential for abuse, but really, we’re grown ups (and those that aren’t grown up enough to be able to use images in an acceptable way would quite quickly weed themselves out of the membership).
Maybe I’m just a guy sitting here in his Old Navy® Tartan Plaid Shirt and Dockers® Flat-Front Iron-Free Pants, drinking a Sugar Free Red Bull™ and munching on some Blazin’ Buffalo Ranch Doritos™ as I type on my Dell® Inspiron™ while listening to XM Satellite Radio™, but I have to think there must be some way to increase revenue without resorting to intrusive advertising.
Yep, and only for paying members - the pics.
Otherwise you’ll get a whole shlew of smucks posting crazy images 'cause they just don’t care enough to be careful.
Also, TPTB, how hard would it be to fire off an e-mail to the entirety of the past and present posters to let them know that there is a free and a pay option if we are to go this route???
By the way, I love the idea of the tiered system and I think it’ll work. Just maybe give paying members a couple of perks, like custom titles and embedded pics as long as the forecast upgrades can handle these additions, that is.
Dangle the carrot, so to speak, but also make it a pleasant place for those who don’t want to pay.
You looked through ten pages of results on a Google search for “do people have sex with animals”?! You are dedicated, I’ll give you that! But please tell me you didn’t do that at work (or worse, a public library!).
I like your point about promoting the books and the website. I think a Straight Dope gift pack would be a great idea. I also think making the threads Google-searchable would draw in tons of people, and I’m not convinced by the arguments against it. (Privacy? On a public internet forum? Who actually thinks like that?)
Too late to edit, but I wanted to add that the ability to add images is a pretty nice thing to have for paying members (and the level it is available at could be set such that it doesn’t become a hassle for mods). I’d prefer this to avatars. Can guests edit? that’s another perk that’s worth paying for.
I suggested several in my post on page 2, not all of which may be practical, but it gives an idea of what I think the direction should be. Briefly, I think flat, threaded discussions are only one way in which a community can interact. Why not investigate some of the others? I feel certain there are things (like the collaborative article writing, or increased user contributions to staff reports) that would lend themselves very well to the Straight Dope, increasing interest and giving it an identity over and above that of a simple messageboard with ever-decreasing links to a column few people read. With a bit of editorial control, you could get much more user participation in really visible content, and have the messageboard backing it up with full discussion of featured stuff. Maybe more formalised debates might be an interesting addition; the Economist is trying these out on its website with featured experts, and it seems like an idea with promise - carefully done, it could be a way of distilling some of the subjects that get too noisy for real progress to be made. And, of course, you could still have free-for-all threads running during the debate.
Essentially, I think more steps need to be made to explicitly encourage the sort of community we frequently tell ourselves we are.
I’ll reprint a couple of your general ideas, Badger:
I agree that avatars are mere window dressing, but as I said I think the place could use a coat of paint.
To expand (I think) on your ideas: Cafe Society could have some child forums indicating where to eat/shop in different part of the world, Great Debates could have temporary child forums for different elections. Set up a wiki for some communally written staff reports (the Cafe Society child forums I mentioned could be alternatively set up as some sort of wiki page as well). Let users have personal blogs that can be linked to others’ by common interests. Maybe introduce a “tag” system for threads/blog entries so people can look up by subject. I don’t see why the SDMB couldn’t have an “offical” chatroom on the go. Could even have a separate chatroom for each of the more popular forums.
Not sure how viable a “guest expert” would be. I have a feeling it’d end up being the same few SDSAB members every few weeks. We don’t have quite the pull of the Economist. Also, I’m not a fan of the ratings systems I’ve seen about.
No, I didn’t think we’d draw guest experts, but the idea of occasional formalised debates could, I think, provide some fun. Anything really that’d give us some individuality, and make people think something other than, “oh, another messageboard,” when they arrive.
None of my ideas were intended to be fully fleshed-out proposals, in any case; they were more examples off the top of my head of the sort of direction I’d be looking to go, were I running the place with any intention of it growing significantly.
As I posted earlier, I certainly agree with you about individual ratings. I do think there’s scope for user-driven flagging of interesting topics, though (over and above that provided by the most-recently-active thread view). By limiting ratings to positive feedback (i.e. allowing users to flag things as interesting, but not the reverse) you could eliminate a fair bit of the tit-for-tat beauty contest crap that tends to accompany such schemes. Definitely something to be implemented with great care, however.
On the home page is a link called “Straight Dope Store.” And the covers of the books aren’t about to be redone just because you don’t like the graphic design.
Ed doesn’t read the Message Board unless he has to. I’m sure that you’re far more knowledgable and skilled at marketing, graphic design, publicity, etc than the current staff, and I suggest that you send your resume to the Chicago READER to offer your services.
It’s not necessarily a matter of not liking the design. Just updating the cover to make it look more recent is simply something you do in the publishing biz to re-invigorate sales.
And jeez, why won’t you guys put a link to the store on the forum pages? Replace any of the vB features you have turned off, like Calender, Member list or the FAQ*.
*Hey, I just noticed that link, lol. We could have gotten rid of a lot of stickies a long time ago if that feature got used.
Um, Dex, I think this sort of response is quite unhelpful. The poster is offering perfectly good ideas for how to market the Dope. He’s right: the front page should have a much more obvious link to the merchandise. After all, the front page is where you can sell to the unwashed masses, so make a **big deal ** out of the possibility.
Similarly, designing new covers for the books, especially as part of a promotional push, would make sense, potentially. After all, that’s precisely the sort of cosmetic fluff that tends to drive sales (or haven’t you paid attention to what it is that Madison Avenue is all about? ).
These are good ideas. Just because the poster in question is suggesting that things aren’t being run to maximum potential (or has a snarky tone from time to time, or is someone people don’t put on their fav list, or whatever) isn’t a reason to dismiss their ideas out of hand and slap them with derisive comments.
How about web designer? I’m not ready to move to Chicago. Can I telecommute?
Seriously, I’m not the worlds best web geek, but I just took the home page and rearranged it to make it vaguely more attractive and easier to navigate.
Took me maybe two hours, during one of which I was also watching Heroes. I’m sure others could do much better in short order.
[sub]Since I’m of course not allowed to republish anything on the Straight Dope site, I had to settle for lame parody.[/sub]
New covers are not something done by the author. They are done by the publisher. And they are only done when a new edition of a book is being published. And a new edition is only published when a book is selling so well that a new edition is warranted.
None of this applies to any of the Straight Dope books. None of which are selling. None of which are going to start selling under any foreseeable set of circumstances.
A new Straight Dope tv show, maybe. Cecil shoots the vice-president in the face in a hunting accident, maybe. Other than that, no freaking way.
Now you’re not wrong that Dex is dismissing promotion out of hand. I’ve seen this at other organizations I’m a member of. I yell and scream about the need for promotion and publicity and get told, essentially, that the world should find us because we’re so wonderful and so nothing needs to be done. Yep, same as here. Exactly. I’m burned out on the subject, frankly. Admittedly, only a very few of the suggestions for publicity have any real-world validity, IMO, but just because the specifics are wrong doesn’t mean that the intention isn’t right.
When you consider that the books page hasn’t been updated to include a cover for the 1998 book, any conceivable change would be an improvement.
Now that some people are switching their default to 200 posts per page, but most others haven’t heard about the change yet, referring to pages no longer works the way it used to. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to start looking for or remembering post numbers in the future. (Unfortunately only because it’s more work and the Replay to threads don’t have them. Hey, that’s a feature that could stand to be implemented.)
Gordon Bennett. Is it really that hard to believe that people are offering their ideas out of a genuine desire to help, rather than demanding changes just to annoy you? The books do look pretty 80s (and like it or not, that matters), and the single link to the rather elderly-looking store isn’t that prominent. The main page looks like an homage to Web Design 101 at a community college circa 1995 (and like it or not, that matters too).
I don’t see the point in a) denying this, or b) having the bare-faced cheek to be arsey towards users who dare to point it out. Why so defensive? Did you design the site? Print the books? Once again, you seem to be treating valid suggestions as unreasonable trespasses on your time, and taking the view that changes are occasional pearls to be dropped on unworthy swine. And this after it was explicitly stated, right in the OP by Ed Zotti, that CL believe the SD and SDMB are vastly underutilised. I just don’t understand your attitude one bit.
Sigh. If I said “good morning,” would you take it as dismissive?
My point was not that people shouldn’t come up with good ideas. My point was that coming up with the best ideas in the world and putting them in this thread is not going to be effective, because they’re not going to be seen by the decision-makers. If you want to spin ideas, which many of you seem to want to do, that’s great… but then don’t get annoyed when there’s no response from the decision-makers who haven’t seen them.
As Expano said, the design of the book covers are up to the publisher. There is currently a huge backstock of the unsold prior editions; why on earth would they want to revise and re-issue?
My other point was that I don’t think Alex’s suggestions are “good ideas.” Simply putting a new cover on a book is not going to increase sales, unless the book is already hugely popular (and then you can fool people into buying multiple copies because they forgot which one they own, like with Agatha Christie.)
However, if you really want to help (rahter than just spin ideas for their own sake), then go to the Straight Dope Store and buy up tons of the old books for holiday presents.
).
