Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All


snoopy138


Feb 8, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #51 of 147 (1803 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28654

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 6:52 PM
Post #52 of 147 (1790 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [snoopy138] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.

nope. i think i walked in on page 300 sumtin was just trying to plan a weekend of climbing and stayed.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:00 PM
Post #54 of 147 (1778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9584

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? When it was ran by MR, Adam, J_Ung the climbers on here had something to "work" for. And many many donated time and money to helping it. It's now owned by a corporation and ran by a guy across the world I don't know if anyone has met. People would be upset if it died while it was a General Store... not when it's a Walmart.

There are a few of us that have met ddt


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:02 PM
Post #55 of 147 (1774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9584

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:07 PM
Post #56 of 147 (1770 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9584

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

I can't imagine where they might have learned this


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 7:13 PM
Post #57 of 147 (1863 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

climbs4fun wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

I can't imagine where they might have learned this

i was not around for the beginnings of BET so i don't know how much of that was in the beginning.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 7:16 PM
Post #58 of 147 (1858 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

climbs4fun wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site
Touche! Not too bad of estimating on my part. Haha. That being said, looking through a history of his posts the same would be said even if his account was 8 years old. Compare to someone like camhead who regularly posts to other forums on thissite.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 7:19 PM
Post #59 of 147 (1856 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30323

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site
Touche! Not too bad of estimating on my part. Haha. That being said, looking through a history of his posts the same would be said even if his account was 8 years old. Compare to someone like camhead who regularly posts to other forums on thissite.

What about drivel? That dude is a n00b.


Khoi


Feb 8, 2011, 7:19 PM
Post #60 of 147 (1854 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 292

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

That doesn't tell me what it is.


tripperjm


Feb 8, 2011, 7:35 PM
Post #61 of 147 (1844 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10598

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

But what about awl teh lurkers? What will happen to awl of them? Where will they awl go?

We contribute plenty. Teh BET v2 has 60450 posts and 928631 views. so that's like uhhh.... 870,000 more views than posts. Sumbody is reading awl that shit contributed content.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 7:39 PM
Post #62 of 147 (1834 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

     Re: [tripperjm] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

tripperjm wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

But what about awl teh lurkers? What will happen to awl of them? Where will they awl go?

We contribute plenty. Teh BET v2 has 60450 posts and 928631 views. so that's like uhhh.... 870,000 more views than posts. Sumbody is reading awl that shit contributed content.

this is true. BETers should be getting paid salaries like any reality show contestants.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:51 PM
Post #63 of 147 (1828 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [Khoi] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

Khoi wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

That doesn't tell me what it is.

You know that thread in the Campground labelled "You are not wanted here"? The one with 60,000-odd posts in it?

Yeah, that's them.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #64 of 147 (1819 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content?

+1. This site is a business for chrissake.

Jay


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:06 PM
Post #65 of 147 (1816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? .

+1


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #66 of 147 (1813 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

jt512 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? .

+1

It's obviously doing something for you, otherwise you wouldn't be here.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:09 PM
Post #67 of 147 (1810 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 8:16 PM
Post #68 of 147 (1800 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:17 PM
Post #69 of 147 (1798 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [Khoi] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
 

Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

Boys Eroticizing Tripperjm

Jay


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:20 PM
Post #70 of 147 (1795 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? .

+1

It's obviously doing something for you, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

And I'm doing something for it? What's your point?

Jay


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:22 PM
Post #71 of 147 (1791 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay


snoopy138


Feb 8, 2011, 8:26 PM
Post #72 of 147 (1784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28654

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.

nope. i think i walked in on page 300 sumtin was just trying to plan a weekend of climbing and stayed.

not page 300 of the OGBET, that's for sure.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 8:30 PM
Post #73 of 147 (1775 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [snoopy138] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.

nope. i think i walked in on page 300 sumtin was just trying to plan a weekend of climbing and stayed.

not page 300 of the OGBET, that's for sure.

i dunno.. march or april 2-3 years ago.. i forget


(This post was edited by jakedatc on Feb 8, 2011, 8:31 PM)


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 8:38 PM
Post #74 of 147 (1767 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay

Not being privy to the internal workings of the rc.com business model, I of course cannot prove this - but I can make some informed predictions. If ddt's smart, he's hosting ads based upon the common model of payment per thousand views - under which model the BET thread would seem to be profitable. However - just about all advertisers filter the stats so that internal actions by users (posting, reloading, going to the next page, etc.) don't actually add to the count, but as far as I'm aware most of these actions do add to the "thread views" count. So to get a feel for how many views of the BET threads actually add to the site's revenue, divide that 900,000 views number by at least ten. So, 90,000 unique views in a year and a half? Yawn - if you want to be making real money out of a site, you need to be getting those sort of numbers per day.

Of course, if he's going with the pay per click model, well... what are the chances that anyone in the BET threads ever clicks on ads here?


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:48 PM
Post #75 of 147 (1761 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay

Not being privy to the internal workings of the rc.com business model, I of course cannot prove this - but I can make some informed predictions. If ddt's smart, he's hosting ads based upon the common model of payment per thousand views - under which model the BET thread would seem to be profitable. However - just about all advertisers filter the stats so that internal actions by users (posting, reloading, going to the next page, etc.) don't actually add to the count, but as far as I'm aware most of these actions do add to the "thread views" count. So to get a feel for how many views of the BET threads actually add to the site's revenue, divide that 900,000 views number by at least ten. So, 90,000 unique views in a year and a half? Yawn - if you want to be making real money out of a site, you need to be getting those sort of numbers per day.

Still, it's 90,000 views in a year and a half that wouldn't be there otherwise. That's revenue for the site with zero marginal cost. Free money.

Jay

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook