Laz, let's slow down. We're getting way ahead ourselves. Keep in mind that I'm commenting from the perspective of what works for a viable business model, since a model that can't cover costs much less provide a profit isn't of much use to anyone... at least, not for very long.
>>Then why not simply kill all the political threads right now, throw off their posters, and be done with it? You claim we are far more trouble than we are worth.
That's your characterization, not mine. The political threads have value in the correct model. Would you argue that the stock-specific threads were of any value (to investors) when they were allowed to be overrun with partisan politics that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic?
>What does "some level" mean?
I couldn't say with an specificity. Obviously Bob is very oriented to making the interface efficient and user-friendly. I'm confident he'll maintain that approach when linking the topical sites together within the user interface. It comes naturally to him.
>>That's EXACTLY what these useless grimy political threads do, buddy.
Again, your characterization. But, what do they do? Cater to financial oriented advertisers? No. Attract financial/investment-oriented users? No. However, they do attract broad-appeal type advertisers and users, the former accustomed to paying lower ad rates and the latter not typically looking to pay to participate. What's wrong with matching the site's model to cater to both advertisers and users?
>>Why the investment threads if that's the desirable quality end? Why wouldn't you let them post free in other areas and force them to pay for access to that?
Because that model has proven to not work. However, it does seem counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
>>And a busy broker in a hot bull market- -when there are lots of brokers- -likely wouldn't have time for more than 5 posts a day total anyway, so why pay?
Brokers? I doubt many brokers actively participate here very much. Well, there was that one who wanted the symbol for TechniClone. :-)
The important issue is that IF, repeat IF some structural change is made pertaining to any genre of SI threads, accommodations will be provided for existing users. That's not even on the to-do list at the moment, much less in the planning stages, so there's no need to get ahead of ourselves.
How did we get off on this tangent anyway? Never mind, I don't want to know. <g> |
