Forum Moderators: open
a) Pre-moderation. All threads would require moderator approval before public posting.
b) Voting and public moderation. There would be a system where posts could be voted on by users. You would be able to set your own "twit list" level where messages below that level would not be included.
c) Members only. All members would have to log in.
d) Subscribers only. All members would pay a subscription fee.
Which one would you vote for and why? (one vote only please)
a- Don't like moderation and really enjoy the current environment.
b- Not enthusiastic about this at all.
d- Hate this. This board thrives because it's a free exchange of information. I believe it will shrivel and die if a paid model is chosen.
Suggestions about banner ads - Really hate this.
Richard Lowe
a very good point wardbekker - even crossed my mind as I was typing that.
Of course there's always room for improvement but my point was more that, at this present time, the admin system is not the problem even though there may be some streamlining that could happen.
I think the general problem for Brett is that managing a community of this size is a full time job no matter what tools you have at your disposal and if he's spending all his time on this and turning away paying SEO jobs or consulting work etc....well you get the picture.
I don't believe that there is a way for Brett to step back from the system without destroying it. Pre-moderation is will simply not work and paid subscription could do a number on our membership base.
So if we can't create breathing room for Brett then maybe we need to create some revenue. I like the subscription idea but there are issues there as well. What I'd really like to see is text ads.
Me too, but only a few per page. Two at the top and eight down the side is too much imho :)
This inspired me to think of the perfect solution!
PPP (Pay Per Post)! :)
Then problem with (D) is only a few hundred of us would pay and it will stop any expansion right in it's tracks. That would kill WebmasterWorld.
I agree with that. Would it help to put out a figure needed? Cash is probably just part of the problem, time has got to be a big constraint regardless of donations or membership fees. How do you get any other work done Brett?
Would it be worth it to setup an affiliate link to Amazon or some other merchant and ask memebers to buy through that link when shopping there?
Everyone voting for D or who can afford to should click that donate button now!
Maybe this:
# go away
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
would curb growth for a while. There are plenty of non-SE links that point here so it wouldn't kill growth.
If those sponserships included text links, you'd probably get a nice reaction from people that know they need incoming links from good PR sites like this one.
I would suggest getting 2 sponsers for the Google forums, 1 for Yahoo, 1 for MSN, etc., and see what happens. You might be able to make enough money to make it worth your while, or at least to cover the costs of hiring someone to run the details you hate. If you were able to take 20-40 hours of your time on this site away and put it on someone, would that help?
Alex
Not so strangely I suppose, this discussion reminds me of others I've read on the problems afflicting DMOZ.
I would hope that the forums could still be read for free to encourage new users.
2p's worth
i'd opt for a variantion of D plus E (ads).
my 2€-cents:
a) pre-moderation
probably not feasable. would like this for new members (such as myself) though ;-)
b) voting
eg. epionions.com and all their clones use a system where reviews/posts are judged (not reviewers, well - indirectly yes) as "helpful", "less helpful", etc. this would enable much better selection of content here. now there are just 2 ways: order by date and full text search. (order by rating could be a subscriber-only option.)
c) members only
honestly, that would kill the boards. the reason to register wouldn't be visible anymore, not even to search engines (!). or am i getting sth wrong here?
d) pay site (entirely)
that would kill you, too. count the members who would pay, multiply it by a possible monthly fee. won't be too much. within half a year your content will be poor (far fewer contributors) and new subscription numbers will be poor (content not indexable - no SE traffic).
===
D) is an interesting option though: you could try to build up premium boards and leave the existing ones free. eg. site reviews for SEO (i know you don't like them): in combination with B (rating) you could let in all members with a very high rating for free (so you get site reviewers) and all others pay. by that you would shift the site towards a C2C consulting service. a similar approach would be a "ask experts" service.
E) is the best (advertising): your audience is a very interesting target group - why no give advertisers the opportunity to reach them? keywords: permission marketing (email), text ads, keyword ads (site search), etc.
btw: sth. you could easily make "subscriber-only" would be sticky mail.
muesli
And the automatic banning of anyone who types "my 2 cents" ;) hehehe...
You could also be more assertive about requesting donations - post how much things cost, how many hours you work on the site, etc.
The subscription model would be good if we were all from North America/Western Europe. But trying to manage hundreds or thousands of subscribers from all over the world would involve handling mail, foreign checks, and currency conversion, not to mention whatever system you need to keep up with members' status, bill them, remind them, and cut them off.
All the forums on SEO type topics in a paid members area.
The other forums out in the open for everybody.
I'd be happy to pay a reasonable fee, c.the cost of good meal out - I have learned enough here to justify that many times over.
But actually if from time to time the donation thing was pushed, it could probably help a whole lot.
I think posts waiting on mod approval will kill the board. Make it way to slow not to mention the strain on mods.
Paying is tricky to do successfully, what happens when someone that pays needs to be banned?
If it's not a matter of money, go the 'member' route.
If it's a matter of time, while you have a great group of mods already perhaps recruit more. I'm sure you can all put yer heads together and come up with some current members that would/could fulfill the obligation and follow the forum rules.
just my 2c while waiting for a phone call ;)
Somehow, I'd come up with the $'s if I had to. This is a great board!
I'm also willing to help with the work if there is any job that needs a grunt :)
Some people here suggest 'impovements' for hosting and moderation. As far as I know, both moderation and hosting are not fees. This board has been builded and maintained by pulling the elastic for very long now. It needs a revenue model.
This revenue model MUST meet the desires and objectives of more experienced professionals members and also provide some way to get new blood. (Stats shows a couple geniuses just got acces to the web today...)
We must keep this board open and friendly to new members.
We could offer more services to members willing to pay.
Having to vote between preset options, sounds like the last call... I hope we have enough time to discuss the right decision.
You could keep the present setup for unpaid users and offer incentives/extras for payment.
I have been following this thread all day and I am surprised by how many people say they would pay if they had to. Maybe if more people had already paid, for a service they obviously put value on, this issue wouldn't be a problem.
If you were to go with (d) I think many people would simply leave, I for one will.
You will fry all your moderators in a week.
>b) Voting and public moderation. ...
For reasons previously stated by others, no. Sometimes a boner question sparks the most interesting threads. This would also heavily favor native English-speakers only.
>c) Members only. All members would have to log in.
Yes, reluctantly, I think it is time for this. I hate to say it since I lurked for months before posting. There is the danger of this contrubuting to stagnation. I think this will not solve the money question. Brett cannot continue to devote the time for free and pay for servers.
>d) Subscribers only. All members would pay a subscription fee.
Several things worry me:
1. Perhaps pay for posting privaleges. This might be a middle ground between totally open and eliminating all registered lurkers. You would still eliminate a lot of posters with good technical information who will not share info if they have to pay just to post once or twice.
2. One of the strengths of WebmasterWorld is the posters from the developing world bring a totally different perspective to the forum. It would be our loss if those voices were cut off. If payment is required (and the day will come,) it should be multi tiered to make it affordable to those from the developing world. IMO.
3. Stagnation. Who do you want here? Professionals? Small-time pros or corporate webmasters? Semi pro's? The level you set the prices at will determine this. But are those price levels going to be the same for the SEO's or the web designers? They may have a very different criteria.
The amateur and content web are already being left behind, they will drop even further behind if they have to pay to even read. I am not sure it is healthy to loose touch with the amateur and content elements of the web. It is a hidden cost that must be factored into the thinking.
F) Pay Per Post Bidding on Google Dance Threads. ;)
[edited by: Brad at 9:49 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2002]
You are right skibum (c) is not a revenue model. I was dreaming too much about my original "F" model where paying members had no banners.
But (c) is still a good way to kill 90% of new subscriptions...
Coming in rather late, I'd like to second rjohara's ideas on reducing the load rather than taking
exclusionary steps...
Make the site search link bigger and bold, and add some nice link text to attract new users to it.
Add a "Click here before posting" link for newcomers - This should load a page with FAQ links and
a link to paynt's welcome post.
Expand on the "Google Knowledge Base" idea: After analyzing the subjects of the majority of
repetitive posts, put a list out here, and let's get some volunteers to search the archives and
come up with some "white papers" to create FAQ pages on the top ten most-popular subjects... "Why
am I PR0/banned from Google - I was only crawled yesterday?", "How can I ban this or that using
.htaccess, etc."
A little highly-targeted work to gather, organize, and make this info very-easily-accessible would
reduce the repetitive-subject posts quite a bit, I think.
Jim
Jatar_k, personally, I would prune out a couple of forums/options already available to members.
Got profile access and StikyMail options in the crosshairs of a long range rifle scope...
[edited by: Macguru at 10:07 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2002]
Having said that, I would be willing to pay a nominal fee for subscription, but I could see many valuable contributors leaving if such a senario was enforced.
At least try c) before d) .. could be a phased transition. I mean c) could have the desired effect without any need to impose d). If you try c) and it doesn't work, then think about d) again!
That's the newbie's 2 cents worth anyway(or tuppence as we say in the UK) :-)
At the same time I agree that charging for membership is totally fair and justified, but would at the same time lead to a drop in contributions and new members joining and sharing their knowledge.
Can you not try and get a sponsorhip deal from someone that doesn't require their branding splashed all over the place but instead benefits from the wealth of knowledge and advice thrown about the forum.
