Ad-Free Apolyton: THE POLL

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

If it ever gets to the point where one has to pay for every site s/he access, the Internet can kiss itself good-bye.

noone is discussing paying to access. end of story.

You might want to plaster this in bold at the top of every post in this thread. That way people may even see it.

[Q Classic]

honestly, i'm not sure which i favor. i don't mind the idea of membership, but since i rarely go anywhere on the site except the forums, i don't know if it would be worth much to me if i had a paid membership.

there was a study somewhere though that said popups often hurt more than they help the companies in question. think it was on /.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DrSpike


You might want to plaster this in bold at the top of every post in this thread. That way people may even see it.

My guess is that it would still be missed by many

[Sirotnikov]

Well, I don't know about the rich guys here, I'm not sure I'll be able to afford anything like 30$ per month. To me it's a huge amount of money, even for a year.

I was thinking more about 1-3$ per month. Hopefully 1$.

Obviously I don't intend to pay a month at a time.

I may be willing to pay around 10$-15$ for a year or something. Maybe 20$. But per year.

Other than no ads, I would like to see OT post counts re-instated.

Oh, and please don't allow large avatars or images in the sigs - it makes browsing so much slower and more frustrating.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DanQ
All righty. It's time for some additional responses to some of the comments and inquiries made in this increasingly viewed thread...

First: $100US as a month fee? Goodness no. At the *most* this would be a high-end cost for a lifetime subscription if we were to implement it. To reiterate, though, no price is yet set in stone even for start-up.

-----------
Dan; Apolyton CS

Sirotnikov, I think that this part of Dan's earlier post should answer this concern. The amounts that I have seen thrown around generally range from $12 to $30 per year

Hope this helps.

[Harry Tuttle]

This may sound a little redundant seeing as we have signatures and a very basic profile page, but what if paying subscribers could have a personal profile page that would be accessible through a link in the avatar? A single page that could be a place where users could display all sorts of info, not just the fill in the blank questions. Sort of a "here's my crap" page. I doubt it would require that much server space if kept reasonable.

My two cents.

[DanQ]

Wow. The discussion in this thread is extensive, and its readership is growing as well.

Let's march on...

Rasbelin: With regards to payment methods...

First, we certainly would never consider cash not only because of its insecurity but because of the hassles involved with conversion/exchange rates. Second, we are only going to be using PayPal for now and definitely only PayPal in the immediate future. We are trying to keep the system as streamlined and straight-forward as possible.

yaroslav: In response to your response on my...

#1: The only modification to the 'Upload' feature that is being considered at present, with regards to the subscription system, is an increase in server space allocation. Anything beyond this would require overhead research and consideration: for now, keeping these simple is critical to see it to implementation and (we believe its) acceptance.

#2: I may stand to be corrected with regards to the technological limitation I cited... can you provide me with IEEE website references on this perhaps or documentation from another reputable source? Regardless, let me say that this is not a point that has been considered nor will it be entertained at this time.

#4: In taking a different track from Markos' valid note on this... you refer to "internal shipment"s. I'm not quite sure I'm following you. Are you saying internally within a country? Even if Markos and I were to disseminate the CDs personally, that only covers Greece and Canada respectively.

Oerdin: I quote from you earlier in this thread:

If the total cost was something like $12 per year then it might be worth it though I'm sure MarkG already makes more then that per person off of the ads.

Apolyton has thousands of visitors a day, but let's just assume for the sake of mathematical simplicity that Apolyton has just 1,000 visitors a year and is bringing in the same advertising in volume and composition that it does 'really'. At $12US (I'm assuming you mean US currency) per person per year, that's $12,000US.

Apolyton does not make that much revenue in a year. Naturally, if we were only bringing in 1,000 visitors per annum we would not have the volume or composition of advertising that we do 'really'...

The Slayer: Absolutely not, re: FTP account for subscribers. We already have the 'Upload' feature in place for the purpose you have mentioned as Markos has already pointed out.

Second, more space in that directory has been suggested before and is being considered (also as said before). However, a 60MB server space allotment per subscriber let alone 100MB is not a value that is being considered. This level is not practical.

Harry Tuttle: Ehhhh... strictly speaking, no. There is a new feature being considered that would function similarly to what you have suggested, however, and even then it would not be limited to subscribers only.

----------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[Skanky Burns]

Good to see this is going on track.

[Rasputin]

unless the subsciption service offers anything useful i certianly wont pay, im glad to see the free service swill continue...

[Case]

If an optional subscription model was brought in (which I support), what would be the knock on effects for non-subscribers?

Would they have to endure more ads (as a somewhat smaller audience would have to see more ads then a larger, and more valuable, audience would), or would their 'ad burden' remain the same, with them being partially subsidised by the subscribers?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MarkG
in the long run, we might actually be able to reduce the ammount of ads if subscriptions are succesfull

[SpencerH]

Paying for (or donating to) Poly usually comes up in the threads (started by members not owners) when the server has problems. Is it worth $20 a year to block ads? Not really. Is it worth $20 a year to ensure poly's success? Yes.

So if the subscribers get some added benefits, thats fine by me, its just icing on the cake.

What about the possibility of preferential access when the server volume is high?

[pchang]

I'm not averse to paying a little money. But considering there are plenty of free pop up blockers, I wouldn't be willing to pay a lot. Maybe $49.95 per year at most.

[Bloody Monk]

Alright, let's think about the word "Moocher," as in, someone who wants, thinks he's entitled to, something for nothing.

There is no "free" on the internet; someone has to pay for site upkeep. You want the use of these boards, but you don't want to help the Owners keep the site open, which is the upshot of your pratling about your "right" to use a popup blocker. Surely you don't think Mark and Dan owes you a free ride. In this context, use of a blocker is akin to theft of services.

But things are looking good for you. It looks like it may be possible, with this new system, to allow folk like you to continue as you have been doing, but without the need of popups for anyone. And the site would be stronger financially to boot. What's to complain about??

Monk

[alva]

Yeah, I'm confused by that aswell...


-

noone is discussing paying to access. end of story.

^ it's been awhile ^

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DrSpike
MWIA:

There is no good way I can think of to make something 'worthwhile' available when Mark and Dan wish to keep content free. All they can offer are nice bonuses. Ultimately it will be about contributing to the site we all enjoy I think, not getting real value for money.

Mark/Dan:

Going on from that, I don't think you will have a huge take up of such an offer. However, I commend the decision to keep content free, and probably in the long run it is the correct decision.

Since I have no idea how much ads bring in from one average poster over 1 year I can't say exactly how much the subscription with benefits 1 to 2b should cost. However, since IMO it will mainly be taken up as a contribution to the site I suggest it is set at around $30 per year in order to attract as many contributors as possible.

I would pay that, and pay it glady for the benefits discussed, even though I don't think they are worth that much. That's why I think you need to re-emphasise supporting the site a little more at this stage, and de-emphasise thinking of benefits worth a higher price, since IMO there are not any whilst the content remains free, as it should.

Mark/Dan: If you make the reemphasis I suggested you might cut out at least some of the predominantly unuseful posts suggesting there is no point to paying for the benefits discussed.

[pchang]

This may all become moot since IE is incorporating pop up blocking into its browser as a default option. (I think some time this summer)

[SpencerH]

Good point. That may mean the return of larger banner ads across the web.

[alva]

You really think Microsoft provides this (pop-up blocker) without an altenative (pop-up) allready beeing availlable. Microsof is looking for some good PR here, they aren't IMHO, looking at giving (computer illitered ) people an easy mean to get rid of them.

EDIT : forgot to type many, many words , hope it's more clear now.

[Snowflake]

I support the idea of paying annually, and life time membership, if possible. I'd be happy to pay $20-$25 per year. Don't have to see any additional benefit, the site itself is worth of this much at least. But if you want to throw in some benefit, no popups and larger PM box sounds good to me. Don't care about size of avartar or +1 OT posts at all.

[SpencerH]

Confusing post Alva.

I'm not computer illiterate and I dont use one. I'm just wary of adding any functionality to IE that may make my system unstable (virus checkers, pop up blockers, etc). If MS add it to its OS then its likely to be reasonably stable (at least by the time I update).

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk

There is no "free" on the internet; someone has to pay for site upkeep.

There's plenty of 'free' on the internet. I dunno where you surf, you might have to 'pay'; but I usually don't.

You want the use of these boards, but you don't want to help the Owners keep the site open, which is the upshot of your pratling about your "right" to use a popup blocker. Surely you don't think Mark and Dan owes you a free ride. In this context, use of a blocker is akin to theft of services.

Monk

So, next time I'm on the the road and I purposely don't look at a billboard, am I stealing from the advertiser as well? What if I skip through the commercials of a recorded TV program? There are VCR's that are designed to do just that! Yet, I have not seen them declared illegal.

Mark or Dan don't owe me jack; I never said they did. They can shut down this site...ban me...edit me...censor me...it's their site, they can do what they wish. That said, they do have to do and allow cetain things on this site in order to keep people visiting this site and attract others to keep doing so as well.

Apolyton, as a site, has a relationship with it's members that require the members to contribute to the growth of the site and the site, in turn and in direct relation to the success of this site, has to provide the tools for the members to provide that beneficial content neede fopr a successful site. We need each other.

I help keep these forums alive by posting "content." That's the theory that runs every forum. If you have no "content" you don't have a useful forum. Which equals a dead forum.

I have no problem with the banner ads. If the owners neeed to ull in a little cash to keep the site running, that's fine. If they want to make a little extra cash with their ads that's fine as well. But, when the ads get too annoying and the benefit of the content doesn't counter the negative aspects of having advertisements shoved in your face, then I will stop visiting this site. Pop-ups are just one of those very annoying things to me. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks so. Oh well.

And, please, quit saying I'm a "moocher" or a "thief." Nothing is further from the truth.

[FlameFlash]

I'd be semi-interested so as just to support 'poly, but currently the only way I support 'poly is buying stuff through the Amazon link as my browser blocks the pop-ups.

/me shrugs.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by BigFree

There's plenty of 'free' on the internet. I dunno where you surf, you might have to 'pay'; but I usually don't.
/////

And, please, quit saying I'm a "moocher" or a "thief." Nothing is further from the truth.

Just because there is no direct exchange of money does not mean you have not paid. If you avoided paying by, for instance, blocking the site's method of generating revenue, then YOU, by your action, did not pay. But it wasn't free. To claim so is being naive; which, surely,you are not.

I don't need to say you are anything; your words speak for themselves.

Have you perhaps heard the phrase, "You can't handle the truth."

The good thing is that if this plan works, then freeloaders will no longer be a problem and the use of a popup blocker will be unnecessary.

Monk

[Lorizael]

I would pay ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Unfortunately my checking account says I'm short by about $999966.90.

But yah, I'd be willing to pay something like $20-30 a year for Poly.

[Andemagne]

Yes, but don't have a credit card.


Dollar or two per month.

[mrmitchell]

Why can't we just get Asher to throw us a few billion?

[SpencerH]

I seem to be getting a wave of annoying pop-ups tonight. Is this Mark and Dans idea of a marketing strategy?

"I'll pay anything, just dont let the weatherbug get me"!

[JellyBean]

I disabled my popup-blocker to take a look at these pop-ups that are the focus of so much debate. Looking at the source for the first one that appeared, behind a set of images of britney spears, I saw:

a href="http://www.gamblingresource.net/search.php?search_word=free+casino&rid=145909" onMouseOver="window.status='http://www.britneyspears.com'; return true"

For those who haven't used html much, this scrap of code means that when you click on the picture, you'll be taken to www.gamblingresource.net, but the little window at the bottom of your browser that usually displays the url that the link leads to will instead show www.britneyspears.com.

It's fairly clear that this is intended to trick people into clicking on the link, expecting a 'Britney Spears Image Gallery' as the text in the image indicates, only to be taken to a list of internet gambling sites, with no Britney at all.

It isn't a major inconvenience - it only affects the tiny minority who click on pop-ups - but it's still a scummy thing to do, and has reaffirmed my lack of faith in the advertising industry. My pop-up blocker is going back on.

[DanQ]

SpencerH: Earlier in this thread I said that "[t]he subscription service is targeted for extras and non-access as well as non-content related additions/permissions" ( within [ http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...58#post2763158 ] ). Markos has already addressed the issue you have cited more directly and is quoted on it above on this page of this thread.

Let me expand on it by affirming that preferential server access during excessively high traffic periods will remain in effect for all registered forum users as is the policy now regardless of whether or not they are a paid subscriber.

---------
Dan; Apolyton CS