This pisses me off...

[bonoman]

And finally, this: Running a large and highly-trafficked web site is pretty expensive. I'm in the fortunate position of being an employee at the company where this site is hosted, so I don't have to pay what would otherwise be several hundred dollars per month in fees to keep this site alive. We often post affiliate links on the site to places like Amazon or CDNOW, such as those in the "ShopMart" section near the bottom of our home page. Just about all of the commission (and the revenue is nothing compared to the costs) from those links goes straight to the company hosting this site. I use the other commissions to try to "pay" the @U2 staff -- which numbers about two dozen people these days -- with things like "staff" t-shirts, which I bought and mailed around the world last year.

I occasionally get emails from people wanting to make a monetary donation to say "thanks" for what we do, and I always tell these folks it's not necessary. @U2 is a free web site, and always will be. Begging for donations or forcing fans to pay for access to something that should be free is something you'll never find here; I'll shut the site down before I start a telethon to raise money. So if you find your favorite web site charging for access these days, we welcome you here. Keep your wallet to yourself.



This is an excert from atu2. What gives them the right to make remarks like this about Joel and interference.

As this person says in their writings they dont have to pay for there site, and they still have banners. This site has been banner free and has alot more things going on then atu2. i dont know of any other u2 site that runs thousands of members. 2$ a month is fuck all.

this pisses me off alot.

I am protesting atu2 and boycotting their website. I am gonna send them an email and i hope others do the same!

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

where on the site did you find that?

 

[ramblin rose]

I guess this doesn't surprise me. It's a pity.

There's also a thread in Zootopia about Interference's situation.

 

[HelloAngel]

I'm in the fortunate position of being an employee at the company where this site is hosted, so I don't have to pay what would otherwise be several hundred dollars per month in fees to keep this site alive.

This is the only reason why he can afford that site. If he didn't work for a host, - that site, like many other U2 fan sites currently, would be having to find a Plan B.

I'm going to close this now because this thread, while innocent, might drudge up hurtful fights, and I'd like to see peace.

Thanks for understanding.

~HA

 

[Elvis]

where on the site did you find that?

I'm curious also... where did you find this?

I agree with HA that this thread has the potential to go sour... but I am reopening it for discussion.... keep it 'clean'.

Joel

 

[Sicy]

http://zootopia.u2.com/webx?128@19.TQdqaS3nD6r^4@.2e105845

 

[Ultraviolet Light]

The Nov. 9 issue of "Off The Record."
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=2653

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

http://zootopia.u2.com/webx?128@19.TQdqaS3nD6r^4@.2e105845

.... do ... not ... understand...

..... how ... to ... read....

ZooDyspotia....

 

[Sicy]

Yeah I agree.

 

[DaveC]

The Nov. 9 issue of "Off The Record."
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=2653

OK...this guy's just ignorant. Screw @U2 from now on...

 

[bonoman]

OMG this is a first a thread being reopened!!

So cool.

Ya its at the end of the new off the record.

hey Elvis, thanks for reopening. But i do understand why it was closed in the first place.

And Elvis i think you should email him and nicely say to him what he needs to here. Be the bigger man, because only the big men can admit when they need help!!!

 

[Zoomerang96]

how quickly EVERYONE forgets that the only reason u2 sites exist is for the love we share of the band.

politics are everywhere.

 

[daisybean]

I'm mellowing in my old age

Ya know something....two months ago this would have totally pissed me off (and it did if I recall )....and I would've have been ranting and sending emails, etc...

But you know something...who cares what other people think...Most of us know what a great thing we have here...it is more than just a message board, it's a community full of wonderful caring people....while it has it's had it's bad times...the good far outweighs that.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I don't agree with Matt MaGee's POV, however he's entitled to have it. To tell the truth what he thinks really doesn't matter to me..

It really saddens me to see U2 fans attack each other...I think people need to listen to One again.

 

[walkon11]

Re: I'm mellowing in my old age

It really saddens me to see U2 fans attack each other...I think people need to listen to One again.

Funny, that same thing has been going through my head...we should all be enjoying/discussing the new Best Of, instead of worrying about the name-calling/"mud-slinging/personal attacks from others (or doing it ourselves)...

Although I'm sure the comment in the article hurt and affected some, I personally would like to thank the people in charge of keeping this forum going (Elvis, Sicy, etc...). This is a wonderful thing I've stumbled upon, and your efforts are not in vain. Thanks again for this great forum/site, the cost is minimal IMO to the joy, fun, and laughter I've experienced and hope to keep experiencing here in the times to come.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

What a crap thread.

And yeah, how hard is that to read???

 

[BostonAnne]

OK...this guy's just ignorant. Screw @U2 from now on...

It think Matt McGee's a cool guy! He has a right to his opinion as does all of the members of Interference.

 

[Party Boy]

My 2c worth

Hello all,

I've been reading all the various trends on this topic with interest and I'd like to put my view across which is somewhere in the middle of both sides of the arguement.

I've been a member since 2000 yet I've only posted about 20-odd times. I'm probably one of the 1000's who sign up and use this site more for reading than for playing a pro-active part in the discussions.

From what I have seen is that there is a small percentage of people who use and post on this site on a very regular basis (number of posts that go into the 1000's is always a good indicator!) and I can completely understand why they would want to keep this site alive through paying a small annual fee - over a long period of time, a lot of friendships etc build up and to keep these alive, $12 a year is definitely worth it.

However, from my perspective, I use this site maybe a couple of times a week to read people's views etc on current U2 topics. I don't use this site to get current U2 news as I can get that on a number of other sites at no cost. Also, I don't have the personal relationships with other people who post so I don't have that emotional link either. So to me, while a lot of the discussions etc. are interesting, by being asked to pay to contribute, when I don't contribute that often doesn't make sense. I'm sure there are a lot of people with a similar view - as someone pointed out in another thread, there are thousands of members, yet the vast majority of these don't post - I am sure there is quite a proportion of those who quite happily read.

I would have no probs paying if I used this site as much as some people do.

Anyway, just some of my views - am nowhere near the extreme on either side of the arguement, just somewhere in that fuzzy grey area in the middle. Today I side with the non-paying half.. no doubt I'll be over to the paying half tomorrow..

 

[mug222]

Party Boy's post is an astute one. I am in a similar situation and will not be a member of the premium site.

I applaud Mr. McGee's determination to keep atU2 free, though I understand that the financial arrangement of that site is quite different from this site. I'm not sure it is his place to criticize Interference--if enough people are willing to pay, and outside money is required to keep the site running, then why not go premium? Therefore Elvis is perfectly in the right in terms of principles etc.

In terms of sound economics, however, I think Elvis is making a tremendous mistake. I have not a doubt in my mind that if this site goes entirely pay-for-access, it will go belly-up before the summer.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

as much as i hate to see anyone go because they're not going to be paying for whatever reason, i can at least appreciate those who are lurkers and essentially only came here to read U2 info which you can get for free elsewhere. i'm not making any personal jabs at anyone who's leaving for any other reason, though.

In terms of sound economics, however, I think Elvis is making a tremendous mistake. I have not a doubt in my mind that if this site goes entirely pay-for-access, it will go belly-up before the summer.

unfortunately, there is no other option. donations were asked for for months, and few people donated. so, elvis is having to switch to where if you want to still have access to all the cool stuff and all the forums you do now, you'll have to pay.

 

[Party Boy]

I'm guessing though that by restricting certain forums to premium payers (or whatever they are called!), you are going to have the same people posting the same time, therefore, it becomes, for want of a better word, very clique and in a sense, off putting to the more casual user.

I honestly have no solution for the owners of this site as clearly for it to survive it needs the funds. However, like all forum's, bulletin boards etc, what makes a site successful is input from the casual passing through fan, aswell as the more die-hard fans who virtually live here! (thats not meant to slight!). If you remove those passing through fans, then the make-up, content and general feel of the site will become very closed (whether intended or not). I've seen posts about another U2 site (can't remember what its called) where to join, you have to be recommended, seconded etc. (which is complete bullshit in my mind). While that clearly isn't the way Interface wants to go, the end result will be something similar, where you have a small group of people in a sense, dictating the content (obviously for the forum's that are available to payed up folk only) and that would put me off straight away.

Ok, I think I've clocked up about 4cents worth of rambling now....

 

[mug222]

unfortunately, there is no other option. donations were asked for for months, and few people donated. so, elvis is having to switch to where if you want to still have access to all the cool stuff and all the forums you do now, you'll have to pay.

I did not say that I had any other solution, but only that I am confident that the current solution can never work.

Eventually, the two major options (shutting it down now or trying to go entirely premium) will both result in the end of Interference--the latter option is just drawing out the inevitable, which I guess is fine if you want it that way.

I'm just going to wait until an up-and-comer with a more sound financial base begins a similar site. It will happen sooner or, as it seems with the current plan, later.

 

[Chrisedge]

$35,000 divided by 6 years divided by 12 months is $486 dollars a month for this site.

I asked for some specifics on website traffic and such, and never heard back. I'd just be interested in how much traffic this site generates. Another site I go to alot is www.DVDtalk.com Many more active members and twice as many threads. They do not charge, but have never had avatars, html sig's, So many smilies, etc...They do have ad's however but I know his site as easily twice as much traffic total, so I'd be interested in comparing.

Plus Matt McGee is about the best guy in the U2 fan world as possible so....

 

[Sicy]

I asked for some specifics on website traffic and such, and never heard back.

Total interference bandwidth ranges from 200-300 GIGS a month.

This is for the entire site, not just the forum.

 

[Popmartijn]

Total interference bandwidth ranges from 200-300 GIGS a month.

This is for the entire site, not just the forum.

... of which this thread has already occupied about 37,5 megabytes (and that's just for the avatars and graphical sigs). With 400 views that is, for every 100 extra views count 9,5 extra megs.

C ya!

Marty

 

[annalivia]

Sorry, I can't stand the word "LURKERS" anymore!

Did you ever consider how many registered people don't have english as their native language? Can you imagine that it's really hard work to post in a foreign language if you don't speak that language too well?

In my opinion it's a bit harsh to call all people who don't post 20 times a day "LURKERS". All this makes it more and more easy for me to say goodbye to this wonderful site although I'm very sad about it at the same time.

Btw: I don't need millions of smilies, signatures, avatars and all that stuff. It's the thoughts that matter. Or as Antoine de Saint Exupery said: "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

a sad anna

 

[Popmartijn]

Sorry, I can't stand the word "LURKERS" anymore!

Did you ever consider how many registered people don't have english as their native language? Can you imagine that it's really hard work to post in a foreign language if you don't speak that language too well?

In my opinion it's a bit harsh to call all people who don't post 20 times a day "LURKERS". All this makes it more and more easy for me to say goodbye to this wonderful site although I'm very sad about it at the same time.

Hmm, maybe my knowledge of English also isn't that well. I've never had a problem with the term 'lurker'. IMO, it's an accepted Internet term (not just here on Interference, but on the whole 'net) for someone who doesn't post much, but is mainly reading. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just what it's called.

Of course, now I really had to know the correct meaning for the word and on the Merriam-Webster dictionary site (http://www.m-w.com for those interested) it indeed says that it can have some negative connotations:

1 a : to lie in wait in a place of concealment especially for an evil purpose b : to move furtively or inconspicuously c : to persist in staying
2 a : to be concealed but capable of being discovered; specifically : to constitute a latent threat b : to lie hidden

Nevertheless, it IS an accepted Internet term (and I never associated it with something negative).

Btw: I don't need millions of smilies, signatures, avatars and all that stuff. It's the thoughts that matter. Or as Antoine de Saint Exupery said: "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

a sad anna

My opinion about this is, I think, already noted.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Salome]

... of which this thread has already occupied about 37,5 megabytes (and that's just for the avatars and graphical sigs). With 400 views that is, for every 100 extra views count 9,5 extra megs.

C ya!

Marty

what I've heard about the money problem so far I would have to say that if Interference was a client of mine I would sugest to try to cut down on the costs instead of trying to increase income

it doesn't seem very likely that the amount of money nesecary to keep the site running the way it is now ($ 5,000 I believe, if I remember the donation threads correctly) will be collected through $ 12 membership fees unless many of the not so frequent readers would subscribe

but - same as with my clients - it's not my place to make the decision what is best in the long run
that decision will have to be made by the owner

 

[Chrisedge]

what I've heard about the money problem so far I would have to say that if Interference was a client of mine I would sugest to try to cut down on the costs instead of trying to increase income

it doesn't seem very likely that the amount of money nesecary to keep the site running the way it is now ($ 5,000 I believe, if I remember the donation threads correctly) will be collected through $ 12 membership fees unless many of the not so frequent readers would subscribe

but - same as with my clients - it's not my place to make the decision what is best in the long run
that decision will have to be made by the owner

This is the smartest post about this subject I've seen. Salome hit it on the head! 416 people would be required to join yearly to hit $5000.

If your "last chance" at saving the site would be charging, wouldn't it be worthwhile to shut off all the bandwidth crap (avatars, uploads, sig's) and see what a difference that would make? Joel collected half his "goal" I bet half the bandwidth comes from all the crap loaded and the way vBulletin is configured.

 

[Sicy]

You people really need to READ once in a while. How many times do the same questions have to be answered? The majority of you know nothing about servers, hosting, bandwidth, processors, etc. You're pretty much trying to argue about things you dont know about.

Avatars and smilies and sigs take up very little bandwidth.
Each Avatar is 7kb or less!
Each smilie is like 2kb.. come on.

HTML and text takes up the most bandwidth. Basically the threads. Everytime they are loaded into your browsers and viewed, etc. LURKERS take up bandwidth. Hundreds of thousands of people view this site monthly. And as I just stated before, its not just the forum, its the entire site. Do you not think that Elvis has thought of everything he could to cut costs? This is his last resort. And as for getting enough members to pay for the site... obviously all 12,000 people arent going to pay, so therefore come December 1st, bandwidth will decrease and it should all balance out. No one really knows what's going to happen after December 1st. We just need to wait and see! Joel is not going to let this site go down, trust me. This subject is just so exhausted.

His thread is still stuck at the top for a reason. Actually, both of his threads! There is a Q&A thread there for a reason, use it please.