Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (5234)	5/9/2007 7:07:29 AM
From: Gib Bogle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50725

"SI's new business model is built around pay per click banner and google ads...not paid memberships." Where are these ads of which you speak?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (5234)	5/9/2007 10:55:47 AM
From: hubris33	Respond to of 50725

Slider, Now you know why it make little sense to pay for content. You are right about there being a problem, but imho dead wrong about the fix (all paid). Many old line SI posters who had large followings and who provided great content - have either left SI, or blatantly use SI as a linking platform to other sites where they are monetizing their content. In the beginning SI was strict about banning posters who promoted their paid sites on SI boards. However, at some point, when subscriber numbers started to fall, they started to look the other way at these promotional gigs, especially when they were presented by popular moderators. THAT apparently was a business decision: let the moderators eat their lunch. I think that the "new" business model allows these promotions, let's hope that SI is smart enough to raise a little bit of revenue from these promotional efforts? Second as a paid site, a subscriber expects a little better content and board management than can be found a Yahoo or elsewhere. IMHO where SI failed is that it failed to recognize the tremendous power it gave away to some unknown, untrained moderator. By allowing the moderators to have banning power, it set these guys up as uncontrolled dictators to do what they pleased with SI's paid membership. How one goes about giving away power to piss off its customers to others is beyond me, but that is what happened here. Unfortunately, SI was likely started by some tech guys but what they are selling is knowledge, education and community. In failing to recognize what they were really selling and failing to work to build community they fail to hang on to subscribers and fail to maintain superior content. This site, or any paid MB site, needs a moderator or counselor process run by professionals who deal in group dynamics and or psychology. So SI quickly became a popularity contest and a divided space of clicks. Getting banned by certain moderators is now a badge of honor for some? Geez. Posting too much on one thread makes you a 'regular' and no longer welcome on other threads? Goodness! Sucking up to a moderator so one can stay connected to a click. WOW! I don't know about you, but I quit caring about those kind of things shortly after leaving Junior High! Sure everyone gets a little worked up from time to time (passionate?) about some issue, but to allow those emotions to get out of line or managed by dictators is just plain silly. I'm no expert in the field but it seems like, if a MB wants to retain good content and posters it needs to have a penalty box for those that get out of hand. Wouldn't it be better to sit someone with a hot head on the sidelines temporarily and give them some coaching before outright banning? Wouldn't it be better to educate those that lack the skills to post successfully than just bansish them to the Woodshed? Pissed off posters aren't likely to renew their subscription if they can get insulted, banned and read the same content for free. But we agree on one major failing of the paid subscriber model here: It's one thing to create, or share content for free...it's quite another to do it for free, to put up with the "noise" generated by free members & multiple screen names... all while enriching the pockets of someone else. It sure is frustrating to do some DD and post a thought or too and have some Yahoo type response from a knuckle-head that is nothing more than a personal attack or inferences, supposition and unfounded accusations. I would not be surprised if valuable posters have topic that gets them charged up and wandering across the line. Those people should be coached back in line or the situation mediated, rather than just banishment. SI wanted to sell quality, but thought that "pay per" would get them to that quality alone. Sadly they left a huge part out of the equation, the human dynamics part [or gave that power away to anyone who wanted to create a thread]. What's left is Yahooligans gone wild. Sadly I see this same thing on most boards. But again, if one is to have content and discussion based on DD, facts and reasoned opinions then one needs a better way to manage the hooligans, hotheads or occasional "passion" from otherwise good people. Plain 'pay per' isn't the answer to getting quality, psychology, coaching, education, etc. is. Gee, maybe everyone will wander over to The Motley Fool where they do manage the boards and education is the focus? H3

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (5234)	5/9/2007 12:04:03 PM
From: Uranium2007	Respond to of 50725

Slider ge might angry when someone points out his HUGE blunders...people with HUGE ego's usually act that way :) The CLASSIC POST by SliderOnTheBlack at the end of December, 2006...when FRG was trading at $8.00: <<<<<PS: Anyone else shorting the pump & dump -- paid promoter Uranium plays? Here's two "POS" bones... FRG & URZ.>>>>>> Sorry Slider...you can "ignore" it all you want....fact is, everyone remebers that classic call :) Bye Bye folks. Remember to ALWAYS do your own research, and NEVER rely on a self-proclaimed "guru". Good luck!

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (5234)	5/10/2007 6:15:20 AM
From: SliderOnTheBlack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50725

* FREE Member Ban * You want Ron Merks banned -- you got it. But, fair -- is fair. You don't want FREEloaders & nonpaying members -- you got it. The FREE buck stops here. Hey, in real life sometimes you have to buy a ticket, or pay a cover...get over it. We're only talking $29.95 a qtr & $89.95 per year people... That's only 6-8 online trade commissions. Just two less starbucks a month. Less than .03 cents a day. Chump change. Ante up. SOTB PS: We have decided to award one scholarship. It's from the Oliver Stone school of conspiracy theory and social change. And the recepient is -- Rogue Dolphin. PPS: Yes, I know there is no way of stopping FREEloaders before they post. There is no way (yet) to block them. They can come on and post how ever many times their SI "limit" allows them too...before they may be caught and bannished into the abyss of cyberdom. But, then again -- maybe one will sneak in under the fence and lay down some good smack and get awarded a scholarship? There's no way to completely close all the exits, but we can post a cover charge at the door. And yes - once they are banned, they can just create another screen name - as many who are banned do. Kind of like spammers on blogs. Or, graffitti artists in the city. Such is life on the big blue ball...