This is what boredom does to you

[Luke17]

Ditto, Mark,

 

 

 

just keep cranking out those great tunes and I'll always stop by for a Cuppa.

[bieke]

 

Well, the chart you posted shows traffic has gone up by almost 400% since the low point on 5/14. But also, serving all impressions required for ads a week early tells you right there that traffic is up.

 

I have no illusions about how long it will take to build the traffic back to where it once was. It took many years to screw up Harmony Central and it's not possible to reverse that degree of damage overnight.

 

The plans are for a slow and steady improvement. You'll notice we're not doing any "Come check out THE NEW HC!!" kind of promotions. We want to nail down the performance first.

 

I've built up two web sites from scratch to millions of views, so it can be done. HC is basically starting over from scratch, but with two major differences: We have a great editorial team, and a parent company that sees this as something long-term and worthwhile.

 

 

That's a good plan. If the objective is slow and steady improvement, then at some point you will have to :

deal with spam (about 20% of traffic are spammers)

fix the software (why can't I post on here, I have to switch browsers in order to post and then I can't see pics or videos)

if there's terabytes of data, make sure that people can search and retrieve that data (the basic search function is useless)

 

you can do all of these at once, just switch to decent software

really, I do not know any other forum that uses vB5, well vBulletin.com forums uses vB5

but that forum is dead

if things start picking up again here, vB5 will be the weakest link

it is not suited for large sites, I don't know where you get that from

it is extremely heavy on servers, it has vulnerability issues, plummeting SEO, no spam control, no add ons, no support, no future

in the future, t will become more saggy, buggy, clunky and maintenance heavy and a pita to keep running.

and the longer you stay with vB5, the more complex it will become to get rid of it

 

of course, HC can stay on vB5, I even get the feeling that this is the plan

in se, not a bad plan, as long as there is slow and steady improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

Bieke:

You are always supportive of HC (even if skeptical at times). It is amazing the power of word of mouth and participation. Some of you remember the old TV commercial about the shampoo: You tell a friend, and they tell a friend and so on, and so on, and so on ...

 

It only takes a few people to really start contributing in a positive manner for the forums to start turning.

 

As to stats: While Alexa is a great source, the back end google analytic tools don't lie. Traffic is on a sharp increase and if the amount of new user questions I field are any barometer, I have to concur.

 

Back to adding more stuff to the FAQ forum!

 

D

[Anderton]

All valid points, Mr. Anderton, and well taken,

 

 

 

However, two people who post on SSS a regular basis, have asked/invited you to drop in on Marky's site to say 'Hello' and that hasn't been acknowledged nor addressed by you.

 

 

 

I think it would be a nice thing to do.

 

a professional courtesy, if you will...

 

 

 

You covered Mark's tunes as a tribute, why not stop in at Mark's Place to say 'Hello?'

 

 

Well, I've stopped by twice, but didn't have anything that I thought was worth contributing. But I'm sure I will at some point. Besides everyone knows I'm a huge fan of Mark's music, I don't want to look like a stalker

 

[Mark L]

 

 

Well, I've stopped by twice, but didn't have anything that I thought was worth contributing. But I'm sure I will at some point. Besides everyone knows I'm a huge fan of Mark's music, I don't want to look like a stalker

 

I've started a thread of introduction for you, Craig. Feel free to post in it any time

[Luke17]

Wow, cool...very nice of you Craig,

 

 

[Mark L]

Wow, cool...very nice of you Craig,

 

 

Indeed

[AlamoJoe]

I love it here, I love it at Mark's Bar. I'm easy.

[Anderton]

Hey Mark - your forum's down, won't load in Chrome or Opera.

[Mark L]

Seems to be okay now

 

It was down a few days ago for the dreaded 'forum maintenance'. I have no control over this - it's done by the people who own createaforum.com. I only discovered that was what they were doing when I happened upon their FB page

 

I naively thought I was in control of my own forum. I was wrong...

[Luke17]

Seems to be okay now

 

 

 

It was down a few days ago for the dreaded 'forum maintenance'. I have no control over this - it's done by the people who own createaforum.com. I only discovered that was what they were doing when I happened upon their FB page

 

 

 

I naively thought I was in control of my own forum. I was wrong...

 

 

 

I guess HC has never been down over the years?

 

 

 

[Anderton]

No one is in control of forums. There is a pantheon of forum gods who live in a remote part of the Canada, just below the arctic circle. They determine when sites are up and sites are down. They schedule maintenance when they feel like it. Sometimes they just don't maintain things at all if they're in a foul mood. The web site saying that the forum is "down for maintenance" is a fabrication. They don't dare tell the truth.

 

Mark, you will soon learn that if you do not make sacrifices to the forum gods, they will not look upon your site with favor. It's too late to do anything about the last down time, but in the future, from time to time create a post and say that you've very happy with the performance of the forum, and how great it is. Our big mistake at HC was complaining about performance, and the forum gods took it personally.

 

But now, we're very happy with the performance of the forum, and everything is great! I was just saying to myself "Self, it sure is great that the forum is working so well! The forum's performance is making all of us happy!"

 

(They know about keywords.)

[Anderton]

I guess HC has never been down over the years?

 

Wasn't it down for like a week or something after the Chinese hack in IIRC 2011 or 2012?

 

 

[Luke17]

It was the Chinese?!

 

 

 

I thought it was the those damned Chechens....

[Mark L]

No one is in control of forums. There is a pantheon of forum gods who live in a remote part of the Canada, just below the arctic circle. They determine when sites are up and sites are down. They schedule maintenance when they feel like it. Sometimes they just don't maintain things at all if they're in a foul mood. The web site saying that the forum is "down for maintenance" is a fabrication. They don't dare tell the truth.

 

Mark, you will soon learn that if you do not make sacrifices to the forum gods, they will not look upon your site with favor. It's too late to do anything about the last down time, but in the future, from time to time create a post and say that you've very happy with the performance of the forum, and how great it is. Our big mistake at HC was complaining about performance, and the forum gods took it personally.

 

But now, we're very happy with the performance of the forum, and everything is great! I was just saying to myself "Self, it sure is great that the forum is working so well! The forum's performance is making all of us happy!"

 

(They know about keywords.)

 

 

 

Well if the Forum Gods need to be appeased, I think I'll sacrifice Luke17. He's done no wrong over there. Killing an innocent victim seems to work quite well in situations like this, if history is anything to go by

 

Sorry, Luke. Nothing personal, mate

 

*whets knife*

[bieke]

 

But now, we're very happy with the performance of the forum, and everything is great! I was just saying to myself "Self, it sure is great that the forum is working so well! The forum's performance is making all of us happy!"

 

(They know about keywords.)

 

Irony ?

It works terrible.

Inadequate software, daily spam attacks, it's slow, buggy, I can't friggin' post unless I switch browsers, can't see videos, no gets fixed, no place to rant, most of the forums are more dead than alive, It sure is great. The decline is slow and steady, HC will most likely be gone within 2 years from now.

[Luke17]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if the Forum Gods need to be appeased, I think I'll sacrifice Luke17. He's done no wrong over there. Killing an innocent victim seems to work quite well in situations like this, if history is anything to go by

 

 

 

Sorry, Luke. Nothing personal, mate

 

 

 

*whets knife*

 

no problem, I'm expendable...if you are whetting a knife to slay me, please don't use one of those cheap Ginsu knives you gave as a bonus to sign up up on your site...

 

 

 

they aren't of good quality, and I rather be dispatched quickly than to be slowly tortured.

 

 

 

thank you,

 

and Farewell.

 

 

 

Luke

 

 

 

[Mark L]

 

no problem, I'm expendable...if you are whetting a knife to slay me, please don't use one of those cheap Ginsu knives you gave as a bonus to sign up up on your site...

 

 

 

they aren't of good quality, and I rather be dispatched quickly than to be slowly tortured.

 

 

 

thank you,

 

and Farewell.

 

 

 

Luke

 

 

 

I'm thinking of using a stone knife, similar to the one used by The White Witch to slay Aslan

 

Only the best for my boys

[Luke17]

Judas....

 

 

 

[Mark L]

Judas....

 

 

 

I'm no Bob Dylan!

[AlamoJoe]

I got a Bowie knife if you need it Mark. My Great,Great grandfather was the last person to actually kill someone with it though so I expect you to use it with great care and respect. Nice clean slices, no gouging.

[Mark L]

I got a Bowie knife if you need it Mark. My Great' date='Great grandfather was the last person to actually kill someone with it though so I expect you to use it with great care and respect. Nice clean slices, no gouging.[/quote']

 

Thanks for the offer, mate, but I just might have to put Luke's sacrifice on hold for the moment

 

Things are afoot. Ads have started to appear and so has censoring of certain words. Neither of these things has anything to do with me. I've been in touch with the 'controlling authority' to register my displeasure. I'm awaiting their reply. I'm not happy :mad2:

[Goober(s)]

 

Well, the chart you posted shows traffic has gone up by almost 400% since the low point on 5/14. But also, serving all impressions required for ads a week early tells you right there that traffic is up.

 

I have no illusions about how long it will take to build the traffic back to where it once was. It took many years to screw up Harmony Central and it's not possible to reverse that degree of damage overnight.

 

The plans are for a slow and steady improvement. You'll notice we're not doing any "Come check out THE NEW HC!!" kind of promotions. We want to nail down the performance first.

 

I've built up two web sites from scratch to millions of views, so it can be done. HC is basically starting over from scratch, but with two major differences: We have a great editorial team, and a parent company that sees this as something long-term and worthwhile.

 

 

I like this forum, but as long as the Pro Reviews hide the reality of their sponsorship from readers, an unethical practice so easily remedied, I just don't feel comfortable posting here.

 

Now that you're rebuilding, why not fix this once and for all?

 

In any case, Mark's forum looks fun. I'll check it out!

 

[Luke17]

 

 

 

I like this forum, but as long as the Pro Reviews hide the reality of their sponsorship from readers, an unethical practice so easily remedied, I just don't feel comfortable posting here.

 

 

 

Now that you're rebuilding, why not fix this once and for all?

 

 

 

In any case, Mark's forum looks fun. I'll check it out!

 

 

 

 

Agreed, it certainly is a thinly veiled ploy...it didnt even get by me, one of the least artful members here.

 

 

[Anderton]

Disclaimer: I do not normally get this upset, but I've been answering the same ridiculous comment from this person for years, and I'm getting really, really tired of it.

 

 

I like this forum, but as long as the Pro Reviews hide the reality of their sponsorship from readers, an unethical practice so easily remedied, I just don't feel comfortable posting here.

 

Now that you're rebuilding, why not fix this once and for all?

 

Because to "fix" it as you propose actually would be unethical.

 

I'll explain why, but first things first. THE REALITY OF HOW PRO REVIEWS ARE FINANCED IS NOT "HIDDEN," so that's BS. IT IS IN AN FAQ, posted as a sticky at the top of the forum. If people CHOOSE TO IGNORE a sticky that says "PRO REVIEW FAQ AND FORUM RULES," that doesn't mean it's "hidden," as per the definition:

 

"kept out of sight; concealed"

 

I maintain this is NOT kept out of sight and concealed:

 

 

And in the FAQ, I went into considerable detail about how the process works:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What other differences are there compared to print reviews?

 

There are no word count or page count limitations, so the review can be extremely thorough. A graphic can accompany each post – it’s not uncommon to have literally dozens of screen shots in a major software review. Audio examples and other supplementary material can also be downloaded. It’s an immersive, interactive experience.

 

Sounds expensive. How are they monetized?

 

The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee. A Pro Review takes a lot of effort on the part of a reviewer, and professionals require compensation.

 

But how does the manufacturer feel if the review has negative comments?

 

It is definitely a leap of faith to sponsor a review where no one knows what the outcome will be; sponsorship buys space, not content. But we’ve found manufacturers prefer to have any negative comments out in the open, where they can be addressed, rather than just having potshots taken at them all over the web. We’ve also found that manufacturers willing to sponsor a Pro Review have confidence in their product, and that confidence is rarely misplaced.

 

Is the HC community concerned about sponsorship influencing the editorial integrity?

 

No, because this is the only review system with built-in “checks and balances.” It’s not possible to get away with unjustified slams or praise when there are literally thousands, or tens of thousands, of people (as well as the manufacturer) looking over your shoulder.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I submit that does anything but conceal the process.

 

Next, look up "sponsorship," which is a word you have continued to use incorrectly FOR YEARS based on MY incorrect usage in the Pro Review FAQ (and I'll explain why I did in a bit). This is what sponsorship means:

 

"a person, firm, organization, etc., that finances and buys the time to broadcast a radio or television program so as to advertise a product, a political party, etc."

 

And to make sure we're on the same page about the definition of what constitutes to "advertise," here's what it means:

 

"to announce or praise (a product, service, etc.) in some public medium of communication in order to induce people to buy or use it"

 

Look at the reviews of the Konnekt, the Digitech IPB-10, the XW-P1, and several others: There are plenty of posts that don't praise a product, but in fact try to convince people NOT to buy it. That does not fit the definition of advertising. Advertising implies control by the advertiser. I'll say it again: Advertising implies control by the advertiser.

 

Now, explain to me how a Pro Review, which consists of content that can be contributed by anyone - supporters, detractors, companies, competitors, moderators, ANYONE - is an act of "advertising" by the manufacturer who, may I remind you, paid for bandwidth and the time of the moderator, NOT THE CONTENT.

 

It's really offensive to me that I went out of my way to create a truly neutral review format that represents the voice of the people, has checks and balances, cannot be censored or altered by the manufacturer, and where no cynic would ever be able to say - as some ignorant people say is the case with all publications - that "advertising buys a favorable review." I'm proud that I've created a review format that is free of the concerns people have about print, blogs, and other review formats - and not only do you fail to recognize that, you accuse me of hiding stuff and being unethical. So go back to reading the blogs that ARE affected by the FTC ruling you cited many threads ago, but which you stopped citing after I read it -- and pointed out that it had nothing to do with how pro reviews are conducted, in terms of either the letter or spirit of the ruling.

 

I used the word "sponsorship" because THERE WAS, AND IS, NO WORD that describes how a pro review works. That's why I had to write an FAQ so that I could explain the process. I then qualified the term as best as I could by saying "sponsorship buys space, not content." It absolutely boggles my mind that you cannot see that distinction.

 

HOW IS THE CONTENT CONTRIBUTED BY READERS, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BULK OF MOST PRO REVIEWS, QUALIFY AS BEING "SPONSORED?" THE ANSWER: IT DOESN'T (unless all those people posting are being compensated under the table, and I don't know about it - which I doubt). YET YOU INSIST I SAY THAT IT IS.

 

I do not think it's realistic to justify what you're saying based on making up your own definitions of words.

 

If you want to suggest a disclaimer to put at the beginning of each pro review that "fixes things once and for all" by being FACTUALLY ACCURATE, is based on the ACCEPTED MEANINGS OF WORDS, and is much shorter than the FAQ (e.g., one or two lines), be my guest.

 

But I don't think you will, because you keep repeating the same erroneous statements over and over, so I don't expect you to be able to explain it properly anyway. So, here's what I'll do to "fix" this so that I don't have to keep responding to your disingenuous assertions, lest someone think you may actually have a fact-based point.

 

Going forward, I'll assume people are as stupid as you seem to think they are, and put at the beginning of every Pro Review "Please read the Pro Review FAQ and Forum Rules before participating." But I flat-out refuse to impugn the credibility of all the people who freely post their own opinions in there by saying that they're being sponsored and providing advertising services for the company that's paying SOLELY for the bandwidth and the moderator's time. That's what you want me to do by saying that "pro reviews are sponsored." The reviews are not. The bandwidth and moderator's time are.

 

Then either they can read the FAQ as instructed and find out the details behind the process rather than a misleading summary, or they don't. That's up to them, not you or me.