Quote from jhithers:
Thanks for the reply, and especially the bold type.
But ET is not the NYT or WSJ - ET is a place where traders/investors come [supposedly] to collaborate with others. It is not a newspaper that prints articles/stories, and competes with 100s and 1000s of other newspapers.
And to compare ET to free services like email and blogs is not a valid argument - neither one of those vehicles is a message board/forum where a few people can disrupt and ruin the quality and content for everyone involved.
For you to say a flat $25/fee per year does not work is not true. The bottom-line is that you need to make a decision as to what ET is - a high-quality site for traders/investors to engage in serious conversation and collaboration. Or the Yahoo! message boards. I think you have already decided that ET is the Yahoo! message boards...so all of us giving feedback is really just a wasted effort.
And competition? How about this for competitive advantage - a real message/board forum where the content is high quality because it is properly run. That is a novel concept, and I am sure it would help your advertising efforts in the long-term.
I couldn't AGREE with you more.
Baron's "response" is rather interesting in that he conveniently ignores the lack of "quality" content issue . . . then chooses to compare ET with the likes of the NY Times, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. - - - to make his point about how ET would be unsuccessful in making itself a pay site.
His point appears more like an EXCUSE to me given that he feels that a credit card validation method would scare potential users away to a competing site.
How does he know this for a FACT?
What factual evidence is he in command of that supports such a view that 80-90% of the potential users will not sign-up if a credit card validation process was used for registration?
In my opinion, his "response" implies that he is VERY much worried about the potential lack of web-hit volume/activity, as opposed to maintaining a HIGH LEVEL OF QUALITY CONTENT.
If the former is indeed much more of a priority to Baron than the latter, then I don't have much hope for ET ever emerging as anything more than a Yahoo Finance Message Board where people post things like:
BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
You got ripped again MORON!!!
Bwaaaaaaa!!!
If there was some sort of a screening/validation process implemented, it would ALSO most likely give the "moderators" an incentive to work with even more motivation given that their duties would be much "easier" with the benefits of having killed off all of the multiple alias' and "kiddies" playing on the Internet.
In other words, they wouldn't be "bogged-down" with the same old issues and repeat offenders. Their morale would be a lot higher, and their interest in maintaining the website in a professional manner would be heightened.
To me, such a credit card validation process is a "win-win" all the way around. It would benefit not only the users of the website, but also the website itself!
Yet Baron appears to be happy with the status quo and the quality of content therein. He also doesn't even seem to be the slightest bit interested in trying it ANY OTHER WAY than the current status-quo. The "finality" and "dismissive" tone in his response is quite telling.
What a shame.
I guess things won't ever really change here at ET unless the advertisers get wise to the fact that the quality of content here has continually made new lows each and every year . . . to the point of becoming more or less like a Yahoo Finance Message Board.
I guess that "quantity" is what Baron presents to potential advertisers . . . but someday the advertisers will see through all of this and realize that the QUALITY on ET is quite lacking.
So much for the Elite in Elitetrader!