Actually your question was asked and answered, yes there are many more ways to make money here rather than charging the people who create for you. Hell if they had of brought $2 T-shirts and put a logo on them I’d probably have paid for one. This is one way of making money rather than charging the content creators to post. Shit how many people wouldn’t have paid $20 for a shirt or a cap or something. It would have been the first time for me I have many shirts from different discussion groups, but I’ve never paid for the privilege of being the creator of a web sites content.
Have I not pointed out the fact that there are other ways of making money from this without charging to post or is it simply a matter that you can’t read?
Can’t read? You’re the one who repeatedly refuses to answer the simple yes or no questions.
Yes or no: does the Chicago Reader have to continue to foot the bill for this board? Yes or no?
Yes or no: does the Chicago Reader have to fund this board in ways that you (or I) find sensible or reasonable? Yes or no?
Yes or no: does the Chicago Reader have the right to shut down this board if they no longer can afford it, or no longer want to pay for it, or if they don’t want to use some of the moneymaking schemes that you (or I) suggest? Yes or no?
The Drudge Report gets over 2 billion hits a year. Can you imagine the bandwidth usage? Didn’t think so. No charge there. How does he do it and still make lots of money … duh!
But is he obligated to do it? If he said that he could no longer afford it, would you still claim that he was obligated to provide all that content for free?
LATimes.com charges for access to their Calendar section. Why do they do that? How can they possibly get away with charging, anyway? Do you think that they should be obligated to not charge for any content on their site?
What is wrong with charging content creators? Eventually the one who has an interest in a service will pay. for understandable reasons the CR decided that the board as it is now is of little interest for them. It costs a lot and generates virtually no income. They owe you or me nothing. As nice as this place is, they would have had every right to simply shut it down. Instead they try to create a viable solution for the future. One aspect explicitly is reducing the number of members. There might have been other possibilities to generate income but this one reliably secures the interests of the CR. There is a guaranteed income tied to traffic. Even if the board drops in size dramatically they are better off than ever before.
Are you suggesting the SDMB’s are “obligated” to a very few Dopers, because they would not have the necessary traffic otherwise? … Q.E.D.
Yes, it is theirs they should pay for it!
No, it is their they can do what they like.
Yes, again it is their board so the decision is all theirs to make.
Now will you do me the favour of answering my question and this time I’ll quote myself.
I’ll ship ya one out today, for sure! Brown or black monkey?
Are they? What about you trying to answer my questions about the accuracy of GQ.
GQ for those of you who have never visited the forum is for factual questions with factual answers. I’ll be assuming that the remaining members will know everything and every question qill be answered with a 100% accuracy. Or will this become an elite community where if a question is posed and a knowledgable guest answers and a regular says BS. Now let us assume that the guest is at the end of his/her 30 days and can’t come back to defend his answer. Doper wins, fighting ignorance with arrogance. Way to go.
Which means that you’d rather they shut it down rather than ask anyone else to pay for it? Right? I mean, obviously asking for help from anyone else is out of the question in your mind. So it’s either find a way to pay for it themselves, or shut it down. Right?
Since they are now claiming that they can’t (or won’t) afford to pay it on their own, then I guess you’d suggest they shut down, right?
Because they obviously don’t want to pay for it all themselves and they don’t want to use your moneymaking suggestions—so off with them, right?
But one choice they are apparently not entitled to make is to charge for it? Huh?
What do you want me to say? Of course I’d like more members rather than less. I’d like a lot of things (including the Chicago Reader use Amazon links) but that’s not my call. I also think that they are entitled to charge or not charge for this board—whatever they want to do. And we are entitled to help pay, or not pay. Whatever we want to do. See how nicely that works?
What? Would you mind making sense please?
It’d be break though if you made some sense. If SDMB had anywhere near the traffic they suppose, “teeming millions”, they could make basic referrals ($0.05@) times “teeming millions” which would equal at even 1 M, $50,000 a year (if teeming millions is on an annual basis). This is far more than they will collect fromthe few 400 Dopers at $4.95 per year (~ $2,000) …
Once again it is their board to do with what they like close it ask for money what ever go out onto the streets an beg what ever but don’t come to me and ask me to give them money for the privilege of creating content which is capable of making them even more money. Firstly I find this to be bad business secondly if they are capable of making money from what I do here then they should be asking me for money they should be paying me and I doubt that’s going to happen. I post in forums to help answer questions and maybe also to learn some things as well but I ain’t paying for it.
NOW WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION ON ACCURACY SIMPLE YES OR NO? if your answer is yes then tel me how will accuracy be maintained and if your answer is no then I know what GQ will be worth next week
a lot less than $5.
I hate it when people type all caps…
Finally. Some semblance of a straight answer from you. So, they are entitled to do whatever they want with their board, right? Including making it subscription? They can do whatever they like.
Honey, get with the program. They already asked YOU. You’ve said no. So what? You are entitled to say no. What’s the big deal?
Fine. You don’t have to pay. But they’ve already asked. Because it’s their board and they’ve got a right to do whatever, including making it a subscription service.
Fine. No problem. Then don’t.
I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know. I suspect that less members won’t be a good thing in one way, but that hasn’t been what I’ve been discussing here. All I’ve been trying to pry out of you here is whether or not the Chicago Reader has a right to do whatever they want with their message board. Glad to see that you finally admit that they are not obligated to give away their services for free.
That has nothing to do with whether or not the Chicago Reader (or any other web service provider) has a right to do whatever they want to with their service.
That would make a great sig line.
It depends (sorry.)
Right now we don’t know how many (and which) posters will pay. We can also not be sure how people will use the trial, how many new users will subscribe or how the board will perform technically.
Contra accuracy:
- Smaller base of users, might be most significant single factor. (note that the regulars are overrepresented among the respondents, so this less severe than it appears)
Pro accuracy:
- fewer questions, single question will get more relative attention
- possibly better signal-to-noise ratio
- better board performance
- even stronger identification and motivation among users
I’ll admit if it was a service then they shouldn’t give it away. It’s not a service, they use it to create income. If they do not use it in some way to create income they are doing something wrong. Unless I’m mistaken Cecil Adams reputation is some what built around facts as in GQ facts. Accuracy! Get the picture? If I am going to pay for a service where I can ask a question and then get a factual answer then I want some guarantees about accuracy. I some times help to provide these answers some times, I am wrong and I am big enough to admit it once I have all the facts. Some times I am correct and at these times I have noted hostility toward the person presenting the facts. If in this situation the presenter of the correct information had been a guest user whose time had expired and was unable to defend his correct factual answer then I ask you this…
1.Would the OP have recieved a factual answer?
2.Would he have gotten value for his five buck if he has come here for a factual answer?
3. Hi, Opal!
Your answer to question one appears to be…
I’m really curious to see what your answer to number two is.
I like it… 
kellner This is what I am most affraid of. When fact and accuracy are concerned no one should be keep out of the debate for any reason. I think that clearly states my position.
Well, can someone explain to ME how to use the horror that is PayPal? I tried once and my $20 vanished into the ether with nothing to show for it. Paypal was some weird pay-now-but-get-no-credit-for-a-month thing - is it different now?
You can’t possibly mean any of this. Less is better? Less discussion and opinion is better! The true “elitism” (really ignorance) of the SDMB’s is now showing …