Forgive my cynicism but consider the OP’s business accumen. Zero presence in a business that is (sort of) built on his name. No occasional popping in, welcoming newbs, then quickly leaving thru the back door the way a successful bar or club owner would. Leaving underlings to deal with shit storms until they get way out of hand. Absolutely zero presence. Nothing. He won’t even write new books until the stockpile of old ones are sold. That is about as absurd as it gets and is very telling. I can’t believe many years ago I actually idolized this guy.
I wish that were true, but the cold hard fact is that no more official books will be published because too many copies of the last one are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere. In general people do not buy books of what they can easily find archived on a web site. There are a few exceptions, of course, but the Dope is apparently not one of them. Collections of non-Cecil board postings are certainly legal - read the fine print at the bottom of the page - but will also never happen, if only because they give the public even less reason to purchase them.
I seemed to have missed all the tumult simply by not leaping to my keyboard and posting in high dudgeon as soon as I noticed something on the screen. That’s the way of the internet, though. And that’s why I’m opposed to avatars. Even with the ability to turn them off, they will make their noxious presence known. Dozens of threads and hundreds of comments and ill-feelings among posters will result as soon as this evil is allowed on the board. You can turn their physical presence off but not the damage they will do.
When TPTB decide what they’ll approve to make this site more revenue-productive, let’s hope they remember this lesson. It’s easier not to do something than to to suffer the consequences from doing the wrong thing.
…priceless.
I still don’t understand, if it takes only a few clicks to get to our user options and one click to turn them off, why would there be heartbreak?
What if a small SQL script was run by the Database Admin (Jerry Davis I assume) first to set all the Show Avatars to off, so people had to manually turn them on.
My opinion is simply if I can ignore without any effort, let users that want them and are willing to pay extra for them, have them.
I might even toggle the option on and off between home and work, if the avatars are small and not-animated.
Jim
Exapno, what I wrote in the other thread:
Sounds similar to the scheme used at dailykos.com. As you may know, they’re a fairly successful outfit these days.
One thing they do which you might consider, is detect the presence of ad-blockers in non-subscribers. The pages come up with an annoying notice that you’re trying to circumvent their subscription model.
In that particular case, I disable my adblocker for the site, rather than pay.
Here, I’d pay.
I’d just like to note that it seems I timed my unplanned three-day “I have too much work to slack off right now” break from the SDMB absolutely perfectly.
Banner ads? What banner ads?
Sign out and surf the dope for a bit if you want to see them.
Ah yes. The inexorable motto of the Couch Potato Nation.
Personally, if turning them off is a user option and the avatars are stored offsite thus not affecting our server I don’t see what credence should be given to the anti-avatar stance. Do you just have some philosophical problem with even their unseen presence?
Most definitely. That’s how it works in my site.
Pat, Jerry, other CL folks and I…
Carry on.
I haven’t been around for a few weeks, so I have no idea what was going on.
But things look the same to me.
Sometimes it pays to be clueless.
Thank you!
Please add me to the list of folks who’d rather not have people rating posts; I find it disgusting enough on Amazon and similar sites. I would pay more to turn off features like avatars. I might buy from Amazon or Powell’s via SDMB. However, I, too, have never bought anything using a link from an ad.
On the subject of avatars, there’s something that those who are vehemently opposed to them might want to consider.
Regardless of how you may feel about them, a casual viewing of large, successful message boards around the Net seems to show that avatars are the norm, not the exception. Sure, you can find scads of places without them - but many, many more with them. As the Net media evolves to become more and more “rich”, I fear that not only will avatars and inline graphics be the norm, but also sound and video - some day.
For now, we may want to consider that when we’re trying to attract new blood (hasn’t there been a thread every few weeks or so about “the death o’ the SDMB” because all the “funny and kewl Dopers” left (presumably leaving behind a bunch of worthless slackjawed yokels), and new ones aren’t coming?), avatars and other features expected on message boards of the 21st century are going to be a strong selling point.
Don’t like them? Then click a couple of buttons and turn them off. Although the script idea is decent, What Exit?, I don’t see why Jerry even has to do that. People will spend hours making posts about some commercial that pissed them off, but they can’t be motivated to set a couple of options in their control panel? I think that the “smartest folks in the room” could figure that one out. Or at least I hope.
If the avatars end up being a drag on bandwidth then yes there would be a problem, but externally linked ones would not be an issue in terms of SDMB bandwidth.
I haven’t read all four pages of comments on the original post but I throw my support behind the two-tiered approach. It fits what I’ve come to expect from other voluntary membership sites – come by for free but paying will give you a better experience.
I’m hopeful about the idea of “free to post” again. I’d happily pay to remove banner ads and help support the site, especially if the board traffic increases. In my mind, paying under those circumstances would mean that I’ve lost nothing (I was paying anyway) and gained a bunch of new content from people willing to deal with ads.
For the record, you can make avatars pretty small and pretty unobtrusive, like at vbulletin’s own site:
10,000 threads about the banner ads? What 10,000 threads about the banner ads? Poof. Never happened. I just wish them away. There are no consequences to doing the wrong thing. Blunder away! 
You bet. Anybody who uses an avatar is an unmitigated moron. It’s difficult enough to deal politely with the many people who post here I now suspect that of. What happens when they shove the proof in my face? 
Gee, thanks, internet profit from 1999. What’d you do, just sit through a bunch of silicon valley meetings? That’s a load of bullshit for and by people who don’t understand what a website is.
Here’s a better reason: Avatars help you keep track of fellow members. They’re easier to notice and remember, like a face. They strengthen community and social bonds. Some (many?) people pay close attention to posters’ screennames. This is a similar thing, designed for everyone else.
I’m all in favor of the two tier subscriptions like many people, however, one thing I want to remind people is that there are many people who subscribe that consider themselves lurkers. Heck, this is only my 361st post, and I’m a charter member who has been registered since July of 2001, and has been lurking for WAY longer. I remember a charter member who made his first post in the last lurker roll call post. There are plenty of us who spend enough time at the SDMB that we think its worth our money, even if we aren’t taking advantage of the posting privileges or the searching ability.
I was against the banner ads as much as anyone, in fact, I downloaded the adblocker (already used Firefox) utility that I read about in the Pit thread just to keep them from showing.
Because of the time that I spend lurking on these boards (probably over 85% of my web time) I think it is worth my $7.98 a year. Whatever y’all do, just make sure it is still worth it to us charter member lurkers. I pay just because It is worth it to me to do my part to keep the SDMB around, but some bonuses available to us who only pay because we like it here.
Oh, and for the record (since everyone else has mentioned it), I am against advater’s, but have no problems with custom titles. Also I think that if we go two tier, PM’s should only be able to be sent by members, but can be recieved by everyone (if possible by VB’s software).
You can disagree with people in About This Message Board, but you need to be civil about it when you do.
Being ugly and disputational like this is unnecessary and uncalled for. Knock it off.