How should Caudata.org be supported?

[Nathan050793]

To comment on the actually thread topic at hand. I have donated and plan to donate in the future. Like most money is tight. I will not object to having ads on the site, I feel if I do not donate substantially (certain quota if you will), I do not get a say. I think that even to give an option to the members is pretty generous as most other larger forums have many ads AND need donations as well. I would like to see a nice placement of the ads but that is about it.

My thoughts exactly. If putting up ads is what it takes to run the site these days, I'm all for it. I don't donate enough money to have an opinion that deserves much influence on this issue.

 

[pete]

I'd prefer no ads, but realistically, I'm not going to stop using the site if ads similar to the John's frog site appear. My only request is that there is none of these weight-loss ads that flash pictures of disgusting guts hanging out (before) and idealistic six packs (after). I hate those ones.

 

[John]

Please forgive me if I don't take these suggestions. You're all getting off into debating what Caudata.org should and shouldn't do. Jen, Mark and I have given you the choices - this poll/thread isn't a debate on what you think we should or shouldn't do.

If we do have a consultation thread like that, it will go more like "What will <insert your name> do?", not "What do you think 'we' should do".

I feel the FrogForum formula works very well. While Google Ads can be pretty far off base, there are other alternatives which can be abit more involved for the Admins.

FrogForum's ads have turned out to be an experiment. They would need Caudata.org's traffic to have a chance of making break-even money.

Mark...in US $s that would be around $75/month or around $15 each for 60 members for a year's site fee?

The pound is at a recent low against the US dollar right now. I doubt it'll stay at $75.

I would be more than willing to begin donating at this level again to ensure this place as ad free.

See the top of this reply, but basically we've given you the viable options in this poll.

I wouldn't even mind advertisements, even completely random ones like those from google ads. But if the site took this hyper commercialized tack that Johnny suggests I would be appalled. In fact I want to start a whole rant right now about how stupid I think that idea.

That's why FrogForum is sitting there as a model for you to see. There's no pay-per-view there, and I think the ads are subtle (except for the ad in the first message of a thread, but as that tells you, registration removes that from your experience).

I'm one of those people who should have donated but haven't! If the small ads by google box is enough to fund the site then fine. If the site is going to be overrun with popups send out the begging letters.

The ad model is quite clearly displayed at the link Jen gave you. This thread/poll isn't a debate, it's a clear choice list.

One snag with Google ads is that sometimes they are for a site which is related and you may not like.This site generally discourages purchase of wild caught animals. The ads may not.

You are correct, unfortunately there are only so many ad sources you can filter out before you don't have many ad sources left.

I'd prefer no ads, but realistically, I'm not going to stop using the site if ads similar to the John's frog site appear. My only request is that there is none of these weight-loss ads that flash pictures of disgusting guts hanging out (before) and idealistic six packs (after). I hate those ones.

I've got over half the ad categories on frogforum turned off. See last quote response.

 

[Abrahm]

That's why FrogForum is sitting there as a model for you to see. There's no pay-per-view there, and I think the ads are subtle (except for the ad in the first message of a thread, but as that tells you, registration removes that from your experience).

I understand this. I was replying specifically to Johnny's post.

You are correct, unfortunately there are only so many ad sources you can filter out before you don't have many ad sources left.

The quote that this replies to was mis-attributed to me, for the record.

 

[merk199]

I am ok with adverts. It is just the way of the world now. Honestly google viagra ads, or ads for some random pet supply site don't bother me as long as it is bringing in cash to defray the costs. I have wondered why we don't have a vendor section where vendors can buy in for a piece and get their own little mini forum to advertise their goods and any potential goods. To see what I mean check out dendroboard. The vendor section wouldn't be a section where the vendor is having to defend themselves from negative feedback, just to advertise their own goods. But that is JMO.
I also was planning on donating as well as I did last year to become a member. I have receive much valuable experience from many here as well as many great deals on sals and newts. What I have saved buying from members on here probably is around $300-$400. That being said that $25 member fee or whatever it was last year was worth it to me. If we can't cover the site expenses and it goes away my sal and newt purchases will be severely curbed. Anyways I wish site membership would be reinstated. I know some have taken shots at John which I believe is completely unfair. If anyone thinks that this was a money making website just do the math on the member fee * the number of actual members. Anyways I was saddened when the memberships went away because of a few complainers and critics. I wish the critics would have drifted off instead of the memberships....anyways just my $0.02.

 

[John]

Sorry Abrahm, I've fixed that now.

Merk: I appreciate what you're saying towards the end there. I am actually optimistic about this - I am all for anything that is less work for me.

 

[John]

And for what it's worth, I don't know what option to vote on.

 

[Jan]

Please forgive me if I don't take these suggestions. You're all getting off into debating what Caudata.org should and shouldn't do. Jen, Mark and I have given you the choices - this poll/thread isn't a debate on what you think we should or shouldn't do.

If this is against the intent of the poll, perhaps we should eliminate the invitation for comments and questions. The invitation is extended on both the home page (and bypasses the need to read any of this thread) and in the first post.

 

[froggy]

I don't mind advertising of the style on frogforum, but I will also donate in 2010 if we go down that route.

 

[John]

If this is against the intent of the poll, perhaps we should eliminate the invitation for comments and questions. The invitation is extended on both the home page (and bypasses the need to read any of this thread) and in the first post.

Yes, you are correct, but suggesting that we bundle up parts of the web site for sale is more than a comment or a question. Judging by Abrahm's reaction, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. I appreciate suggestions but experience dictates we present options and work within a relatively narrow framework.

 

[Abrahm]

Yes, you are correct, but suggesting that we bundle up parts of the web site for sale is more than a comment or a question. Judging by Abrahm's reaction, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. I appreciate suggestions but experience dictates we present options and work within a relatively narrow framework.

I agree. Narrow framework for now and add more variables as necessary.

See the top of this reply, but basically we've given you the viable options in this poll.

In response to this, I stand by my vote. I WILL donate this year. Would pledging specific dollar amounts be a help to this thread?

 

[Jan]

Yes, you are correct, but suggesting that we bundle up parts of the web site for sale is more than a comment or a question. Judging by Abrahm's reaction, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. I appreciate suggestions but experience dictates we present options and work within a relatively narrow framework.

Agreed. Your comment landed on my grey matter, however, as more overarching than this - thanks for the clarification. For the record, I have historically financially contributed to this site and will continue to do so if the moratorium on contributions is lifted.

 

[tmarmoratus]

Honestly, I'm fine with either way. If there are enough people donating to keep up with the costs of the site, I will gladly donate as well. If not, advertisements aren't the end of the world, and aren't quite the eyesore people like to make them out to be.

 

[AaronK]

Advertisements are ok, I plan on donating in 2010.

 

[Velaria]

Whoa- it's the equivalent of $75.00 USD a month??

I hope I'm not being too forward by saying that the web host is really gauging you, John! Even with a ton of traffic, that's an outrageous cost! Have you considered switching hosts? I use hostica.com. They have great hosting prices, even for high traffic, large-bandwidth sites.

 

[John]

Whoa- it's the equivalent of $75.00 USD a month??

I hope I'm not being too forward by saying that the web host is really gauging you, John! Even with a ton of traffic, that's an outrageous cost! Have you considered switching hosts? I use hostica.com. They have great hosting prices, even for high traffic, large-bandwidth sites.

I think you mean gouging, not gauging.

Firstly, you are absolutely incorrect. Normally I wouldn't answer this post because it's naive presumption. I sincerely mean no offence but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. I'm only answering this because I don't want you to give other members false information when they read what you've posted.

Unfortunately you don't have the benefit of Caudata.org's nearly 10 year experience and my 15 years working on the web. It is true to say that most hosting companies "offer" huge bandwidth hosting plans for relatively little money. These are "virtual" hosting plans where you share a server with many other customers but from your point of view it appears that you have your own little server. You're sharing all the resources of the server computer with all the other customers.

Try running a site that uses serious bandwidth on a top virtual hosting plan and see what happens. Now add a serious database that needs to be accessed for most page loads. We outgrew virtual hosting pretty early on but we persevered with it until about 6 years ago. For example, our last host was one of the top 5 rated web hosting companies, but while we stayed well within their plan requirements, we used far more CPU time than they were comfortable with so they wanted us to go to a dedicated server (our own, unshared machine) which, at the time, the most basic plan would have cost nearly 4 times what we're paying now.

 

[Shizeric]

Is there a way certain members could pay a yearly membership to have abilities like altering the color of their username, or stuff like that?

I've always scoured the internet looking for Axolotl shot glasses...if the proceeds would go to caudata.org, we need to create somehting like that.

 

[Mac Myers]

How does one donate assuming one is so inclined?

 

[Mark]

Hi Mac, donations are currently disabled whilst we decide on the funding strategy.

 

[Jennewt]

Donations are now re-enabled. See this other thread in the Announcements section for further details. Thanks to all who gave input on the poll and elsewhere.