RE: FN-FORUM: Re: FN-FORUM: RE: Interesting...

date posted 19th November 2007 23:09

>Ben wrote:
>> Hi Dom - are you suggesting that Dan and Andy run Freelancers.net =
purely
>> for fun? The forum is hugely appreciated, but I'd suggest that it's =
not=20
>> a charitable venture! I'd wager that revenue from AdWords / =
Prosperity4
>> advertising and GuruWebHost reselling turns a modest annual profit.

Dom wrote:=20
> I'm not suggesting anything - I'm just reposting Dan's comments,=20
> where he said the revenue from Goole Ads on the archive wasn't
> high enough to make it a deciding factor in whether to have a
> public archive.
> The only question is how "modest" is "modest"?

Hi Dom - fair enough. Again, I have zero criticism of whatever profit =
the
site yields for Dan and Andy - they deserve it!

The point I was making was that just because no direct fee is charged =
for
something, does not mean it would be reasonable for a provider to adopt =
a
"like it or lump it" attitude to its community, as apparently advocated =
by
Carrie:

"I would like to remind Gary that the list is provided free, as is, by =
Dan
and Andy (thanks guys!). [..] It is what it is, take it or leave it"

"It's free, so take it or leave it" is a common trigger reply to feature
requests / constructive criticism on (e.g.) OSS forums and does nothing =
to
further a project's success. Alienating a community by making it clear =
that
their feedback will fall on deaf ears is a sure-fire way to kill it!

Cheers, Ben