Only 12 time-outs today, SDMD. Well done.

The BBQ Pit
81

Ladies! Ladies! Put the claws away! We are supposed to be ripping into the technical staff of the board and the cheap bastards at The Reader, not ripping into each other.

We must provide a united front, stand up to our tormentors and demand fair treatment. For too long we have suffered with shoddy maintenance and mediocre databases. For too long we have bent under the yoke of dysfunctional search abilities. I say that today we need to show the powers that be at The Reader that we will no longer sit idly by while this Message Board that we all love and cherish is made to lay fallow. Our moderators give freely of their time and sweat to help nurture it yet the overlords do almost nothing to support its growth. The Dope has been fighting ignorance but has received little ammunition from The Reader in it’s struggle. Countless brilliant (and not so brilliant) people have turned to the SDMB for knowledge, enlightenment, entertainment, solace and camaraderie. This board is home to geniuses, imbeciles, lunatics and sages. We are a family that can tear each other apart but come together and help each other in times of need.

I call for all dopers to let the powers that be at The Reader know that we are tired of being relegated to the sidelines. Send e-mails, letters, phone calls telling them that we demand an improvement to the functioning of the message board. There are hundreds of us out here, putting money into the coffers of The Reader and we deserve a return on our investment.

We don’t need to sue, as Hildo suggests. We need to boycott. Stop posting for one week so they can see our commitment.

“We shall overcome…”

82

[QUOTE=erie774]
We don’t need to sue, as Hildo suggests. We need to boycott. Stop posting for one week so they can see our commitment.

“We shall overcome…”
[/QUOTE]

Cool! I’m leaving for vacation tomorrow. Not just some much needed downtime – it’s gonna be a statement!

83

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
If they’re on the subscription plan, upgrades are free, but I don’t think the cost is the issue - upgrades are fraught with peril, particularly when the back end database is misbehaving/unstable anyway. And it’s not just like upgrading Firefox or something - it’s a migration task that takes time and must be managed.
[/QUOTE]

  1. Turn forum off from the administrator control panel.
  2. Overwrite old 3.0.7 scripts with new 3.6.8 scripts.
  3. Run an update script ([forum directory]/install/upgrade.php). Enter vBulletin customer number. Click the “next” button when prompted. Because the SDMB is so many versions behind, there will be a LOT more “next” clicking.
  4. When it’s all over, remove files from the [forum directory]/install directory.
  5. Turn forum on from the administrator control panel.
  6. Profit!
84

Sure, I can completely believe that’s what’s meant to happen. From experience of past upgrades though - and given that there’s something wrong with the database and/or server anyway, I doubt if reality would be quite so shiny.

85

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Sure, I can completely believe that’s what’s meant to happen. From experience of past upgrades though - and given that there’s something wrong with the database and/or server anyway, I doubt if reality would be quite so shiny.
[/QUOTE]

OK, new step 1: Back up existing database.
Step 2: Fix existing server (sometimes you have to suck it up and buy a new one if software/OS upgrades don’t cut it)

I mean really. We have enough PPP (Pocket Protector People) here that know how to fix various computer problems. Every company I have ever worked at has had to deal with server/database problems and it has never been allowed to go on for years. The problem is fixed within a few days to a couple weeks (if new equipment needed to be purchased, installed and configured). If it cannot be done quickly enough, than the DBA is given the axe.

86

[QUOTE=erie774]
I call for all dopers to let the powers that be at The Reader know that we are tired of being relegated to the sidelines. Send e-mails, letters, phone calls telling them that we demand an improvement to the functioning of the message board. There are hundreds of us out here, putting money into the coffers of The Reader and we deserve a return on our investment.

We don’t need to sue, as Hildo suggests. We need to boycott. Stop posting for one week so they can see our commitment.
[/QUOTE]

Er, the trouble with this plan is, they already have our money. And we’re not due to pony up again for a whole 'nother year. Before a boycott can work, you have to have immediately effective leverage.

Which we don’t. You’d have to mobilize everyone whose subscription was due to expire in the next week or so, and have THEM demand improvement “or else”.

But I doubt you’d get any action. It’s not a whole lot of money, frankly, and if we’ve heard one message consistently over the years, it’s that the Reader frankly doesn’t give a damn whether the message board is here or not. Shutting it down entirely wouldn’t bunch any panties in the corporate offices, and the money it brings in, what there is of it, is clearly only to help underwrite the cost of the message board that the Reader doesn’t really want in the first place. Withdraw subscription funds from it, and the Suits will simply shrug, and we’ll start having discussions again about banner ads. The Google ads? We didn’t used to have those. Ditto the PC Magazine and Amazon ads on the home page. TPTB inaugurated those, along with the subscriptions, in a desperate attempt to demonstrate to the Reader that the boards could pay their own way, that they weren’t just a free Internet amusement for cubicle drones.

But you take away the subscriptions, and the message board will no longer be here, because we were only here on sufferance to begin with, and the money that’s coming in to the Reader from it hardly constitutes a cash cow that the Suits won’t want to lose.

Hence we have no leverage. If we threaten to leave, they’ll simply shrug and say, “Fine. Leave. We didn’t want you here anyway.”

87

And Duck Duck Goose is an OPTIMIST around this place!

88

The connection issues have been terrible all week. It sucks. We obviously need a rich patron to relieve the situation. Any volunteers?

89

[QUOTE=neutron star]
Honestly, I’m sick to death of this shit. Since we’ve gone pay-to-post, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars to work with, in addition to the Google ads. Nothing ever seems to get done, though.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Duck Duck Goose]

But I doubt you’d get any action. It’s not a whole lot of money, frankly, and if we’ve heard one message consistently over the years, it’s that the Reader frankly doesn’t give a damn whether the message board is here or not. Shutting it down entirely wouldn’t bunch any panties in the corporate offices, and the money it brings in, what there is of it, is clearly only to help underwrite the cost of the message board that the Reader doesn’t really want in the first place. Withdraw subscription funds from it, and the Suits will simply shrug, and we’ll start having discussions again about banner ads. […]
[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to call out either of you, it’s just that you both pointed out the perfect dichotomy of opinions I’ve seen about this message board’s finances. Are we a net positive or negative to the Reader’s revenue?

My math may be entirely wrong, but let me try a little back-of-the-envelope figuring, ok?
According to the front page, we have 68,996 members.
Charter members pay about $8, others pay $15.
I have no idea how many charter members we have, so I’ll be generous and guess 20%.
80% of 68 996 times $15 = $827 952
20% of 68 996 times $8 = $110 394
If this is correct, the annual gross profit of this site from memberships alone is $938 346.

To that amount, we’d have to add some unknown figure for ad revenue.
From this data, is it fair to say our grand total of profit is north of 1 million per annum?

Now let’s think, what are the expenses? There’s processing fees on payments, that’s for sure. We don’t have a dedicated tech person, otherwise Jerry would always be on duty. So there’s no salary to add, only hours of consulting. We probably have a dedicated server, so there’s some hardware and software. Do we have paid moderators? Even if we did, I seriously doubt this board gets anywhere near a million a year in expenses.

[QUOTE=neutron star]
Well, they’ve already told us; our membership fees don’t necessarily go towards the operation of this message board. They drop straight down into the coffers of the Chicago Reader, which never once gave a shit about the SDMB.

To them, it’s just a revenue stream, the complaints of which they can safely ignore, since they know that there are thousands of people who wouldn’t stop coming here, no matter what the inconvenience.
[/QUOTE]

Amen to that, brother. It looks like that’s the Straight Dope on this case.

90

Jesus Christ.

All I have to add to this thread is the fact that multiple people who have ragged on me for not having a life have far more posts than me in a much shorter period of time. Pot? Kettle?

The only thing that the administration needs to do with our hundreds of thousands of dollars is archive old posts to decrease the size of the database. Dozens of other free message boards have done the same.

They don’t do it, though.

They don’t give a fuck about us, and anyone who cannot see that is blind.

91

[QUOTE=Duck Duck Goose]
All you have to do is Search in ATMB under posts by him, and somewhere in there, if memory serves, there are a number of tech discussions of board software…If you put it on Show Results As Posts, it’s easier to skim them. Good luck with it!
[/QUOTE]
That suggestion may earn you an ‘abuser of the system’ label and have the unintended consequence of seeing a 3 hour wait time between searches get implemented.

I promise, I try to ‘overlook’ the lousy administration here. At the risk of sounding overly nasty, if they can log posters indiscretions to build a case for banning - paid subscribers can dredge up all of their past fuck-ups as well.

92

[QUOTE=xnylder]
According to the front page, we have 68,996 members.
[/QUOTE]

This count includes everyone who has ever registered since the SDMB was created eight odd years ago.

93

[QUOTE=erie774]
I mean really. We have enough PPP (Pocket Protector People) here that know how to fix various computer problems.
[/QUOTE]
I seem to recall that WhatExit offered to help and his offer was refused.

It seems to me that they first have to admit they have a problem, and that has been grudging at best, if at all. Because the next step after that is to to believe that a Power greater than themselves could restore us to sanity, and we all know that ain’t never gonna happen.

94

[QUOTE=neutron star]

They don’t give a fuck about us, and anyone who cannot see that is blind.

[/QUOTE]

Well I give a fuck (1) about you. Feel better now?

My little woobie.

95

[QUOTE=erie774]
OK, new step 1: Back up existing database.
Step 2: Fix existing server (sometimes you have to suck it up and buy a new one if software/OS upgrades don’t cut it)

I mean really. We have enough PPP (Pocket Protector People) here that know how to fix various computer problems. Every company I have ever worked at has had to deal with server/database problems and it has never been allowed to go on for years. The problem is fixed within a few days to a couple weeks (if new equipment needed to be purchased, installed and configured). If it cannot be done quickly enough, than the DBA is given the axe.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a problem of finite magnitude, that’s for sure - I don’t want you to think I’m making excuses for the administrators. In truth, I think in terms of the support deal we get, little has changed here since going to the pay model - the same sorts of problems seem to occur and get the same sorts of remedies. All that’s happened is that one of the excuses we were formerly given for enduring it (i.e. You’re sponging off the Reader, so you can’t expect much) simply isn’t used any more.

96

[QUOTE=Frank]
This count includes everyone who has ever registered since the SDMB was created eight odd years ago.
[/QUOTE]

Frank , since you are closer to the center of the action, maybe you could provide us with a more accurate count?

[QUOTE=Plynck]
I seem to recall that WhatExit offered to help and his offer was refused.

It seems to me that they first have to admit they have a problem, and that has been grudging at best, if at all. Because the next step after that is to to believe that a Power greater than themselves could restore us to sanity, and we all know that ain’t never gonna happen.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

97

Let’s do a generous estimation and say we have 2000 or so active ** members. 800 Charter, 1200 regular. That’s $25,000 a year. Maybe a third of what Jerry** pulls in.

You can tell me that I’m underestimating it by a lot, but until someone from TPTB come in and say otherwise, that’s what I’d guess.

98

[QUOTE=erie774]
Frank , since you are closer to the center of the action, maybe you could provide us with a more accurate count?
[/QUOTE]

The Reader is no longer willing to give out subscription figures. They only did when we first went to pay because so many were concerned that the board would not survive. If I recall correctly, something over 3000 signed up as charter members; what the numbers are two years later I couldn’t even guess.

99

Wasn’t there a link to a website that had the SDMB all indexed and had the usage stats?

100

[QUOTE=JohnBckWLD]
That suggestion may earn you an ‘abuser of the system’ label and have the unintended consequence of seeing a 3 hour wait time between searches get implemented.
[/QUOTE]

Ummmm…nooooo…

I just zipped through a search as described, “Find all posts by JDavis in ATMB, show all threads as posts”, went through Results 1 to 25, back and forth from post to Search results repeatedly–no lockout.

Once it brings up your Search results, going back and forth from the actual posts back to your search results doesn’t mean it’s performing a new search every time. You only get into the Search Abuser problem if you’re performing multiple sequential searches.

Which this isn’t. :wink: