|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 7, 2013, 8:40 PM
Post #201 of 430
(10306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
ncrockclimber wrote: I think that it is "pretty absurd" to think that the combative and rude tone set by a few "power users" with an extremely high post count has nothing to do with the decline in user participation on the forum. Just like you, I have friends that have left this site for the greener pastures of MP or ST. Like me, they left because they found the personality of this site to be unenjoyable. It is pretty obvious that you and I are not going to agree on this. Jeff is going to steer this site in the direction that he thinks is best. I just wanted to present the other side to the position you are aggressively supporting. FWIW, this is not meant as a personal attack against you. I climbed next to you at Atlantis this summer and found you to be polite and affable. I would welcome the opportunity to interact with you again in the real world. Cheers.
Thanks. I rarely take anything as a personal attack when discussing a topic like this, which has no definitively right or wrong answer. It could very well be that the decline in RC.com user participation has more than one cause--in fact, I'd bet on it. I'm merely pointing out that "bullying" is not why any of my friends have left the site. If, as you indicated, some of your friends have left RC.com for the Supertopo forums, I'm curious how that's working out for them? In general, ST is much less moderated than RC.com is and some of the discussions over there get pretty confrontational.
Hope to run into you again too--it's Oak Flat/Queen Creek season !!
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Nov 7, 2013, 8:47 PM
Post #202 of 430
(10296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
lena_chita wrote: mojomonkey wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: granite_grrl wrote: There's nothing to post to on this site anymore. Could that be because.... In reply to: ....over the last two years this place became increasingly more toxic and the "noise" generated by a few high-post count users drowned out the rest of the community and climbing content. As a result, the majority of users stopped participating. Possible. Though what you consider noise may also be drawing in other users with tastes different than yours. The problem may be more fundamental - why bother with RC.com? The site's staying power waned. I used to look at photos, check out the route database, maybe even read the articles posted. But I go elsewhere for those things now because I get a better experience. Years ago RC was the only route database for lots of areas I was interested in. The route DB on MP probably pulls in a lot of users now. It is much broader now and easier for me to find info on, or ask a question about, a specific route. For a question the best you can do here is a regional forum. Folks often are unable to figure out how to post a thread linked to a region and just dump it in general, so good luck finding that info again with the weak search here. On MP I can look through the comments for a specific route. Maybe my question has been covered already. If not, maybe someone answers it and the info is easily found by others. And anyone can comment on the route without having to log an ascent and add it to the notes like here (and only 5 of those are show at a time). So I start using MP for that info. Same with news items, or pictures*, or gear reviews. I found better sites for all of those. So what is left here? What does RC excel at to keep me checking in? But how is this different from other climbing-related discussion forums? When I first joined RC, Facebook wasn't anywhere near what it is now. Deadpoint magazine didn't exist. In fact, most climbing-related news were just starting online versions. Whether it is gear reviews, or climbing videos, the wealth of information on the web now, compared to even 7-8 years ago, is staggering. And of course the websites that are dedicated to one particular aspect of it, such as climbing news or gear reviews, are donig a much more thorough job of it that RC.com does. There are many ways that the informational/database side of RC.com could be improved, and I would dearly love to see those improvements. Whether it is the ability to quickly search for all photos of a specific route, or being able to sort a climbing log, or getting consensus route grades, it' would be awesome and welcome. There are definitely updates to the front page and general appearance of the site that would be beneficial. But forums are made by people. And you searching for a specific photos or browsing database for route comments doesn't contribute to the vibrancy of the forum. People do. And people now have other means to connect. If RC were to go down right now, I would still like macherry's picture of a giant cat on Facebook, laugh at adateseman's backhoe accident, comment on drivel's blog, ask curt for trip beta, watch camhead's video, follow chossmonkey's competition circuit, and so on.
Regarding the bolded, I think those things do contribute to the forum because they help provide the people. Even if the MP forums are dead I'm on the site regularly for other reasons. And I'd still pull up the forums to see if there is something to read or comment on. If the forums are slow here, or overrun by spam, I just stop coming. The forums are really the only thing I go to here - I almost never even click on the homepage and suspect many don't. So when the forums aren't worthwhile, I stop coming.
On the plus side - the forum platform is set up pretty well. I prefer the quoting here over other places. I like that I am taken directly to the first unread post in a thread. I like being able to message users and keep it within the site (where MP just sends an e-mail and expects the conversation to happen there). These are things not tied to who is posting or what they are posting that do draw me back here.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 7, 2013, 8:53 PM
Post #203 of 430
(10290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: If, as you indicated, some of your friends have left RC.com for the Supertopo forums, I'm curious how that's working out for them? In general, ST is much less moderated than RC.com is and some of the discussions over there get pretty confrontational.
Seeing as NCRock is the one that told me of this thread (by way of a ST pm, iirc)....
Personally I've had no trouble at all in the rough and tumble world of ST. Even when venturing into the political/gun threads (or even starting new ones). I'm nowhere near as active there as I was here, but a couple posts a day isn't too shabby, and is about how active as I was when still here.
It's actually quite the accepting place if you're specific with your questions and a bit humble, and it is much, much tamer now than it used to be (there was a bit of a purge a while back).
Edit- As you might surmise re: the ST purge, folks deemed troublemakers that were merely there to be condescending, argumentative and berate people were shown the door. Signal went up, noise went way down, and a lot more linkers started participating.
Edit x2- seems NCRock pm'd me from MP, not ST. Same difference.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Nov 7, 2013, 9:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Nov 7, 2013, 9:25 PM
Post #204 of 430
(10261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
macherry wrote: social media sites have replaced certain aspects of rc.com....especially community. but, if it weren't for rc.com in the first place, i wouldn't have these connections. there was a vibrant rc.com community that was relatively easy to join. but, with users not using or staying on the site, it's hard to build community or a user base that sticks around.
This is true. But what is the remedy, if there is one?
Some of it seems to be just a normal lifecycle of an internet forum. New people join, old people leave. And it doesn't happen at a steady-state level, there are usually waves.
There has to be a sizeable group of people who still enthusiastically answer 'which shoes' question. There has to be a sizeable group of people willing to meet new people. Most of the users responding to this thread are neither.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 7, 2013, 9:42 PM
Post #205 of 430
(10251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
epoch wrote: curt wrote: granite_grrl wrote: ncrockclimber wrote: I do not believe that the previous "management" or spam (a recent phenomenon) had anything to do with the decline in forum participation. I think that over the last two years this place became increasingly more toxic and the "noise" generated by a few high-post count users drowned out the rest of the community and climbing content. As a result, the majority of users stopped participating. All the calls for leaving the forum alone sound like a recipe for continuing the status quo. That is something that does not appeal to me, and if forum participation is any indicator, something that only a small minority of users enjoy. I'm curious who these few high post users are. Frankly, some of the most often complained about people (ie - in this thread it's been JT and Curt) are quite knowledgable and only add to the noise when someone picks a fight with them. Actually, if you look through the list of users with 10,000 posts + you have a list of experienced and knowledgable climbers (with a few exceptions). The idea that a few abusive posters have driven away site traffic away from RC.com is really pretty absurd. John Gill, John Long, John Stannard, Dr. Kerwin Klein (all friends of mine) no longer post here--and it certainly isn't because of jt512 or me--or anyone similar. The reason large numbers of experienced climbers have left RC.com is because the signal to noise ratio is so horribly low here, with nothing but "what shoe should I buy" threads and other similarly repetitive and banal offerings. There is simply very little content here anymore. I have many other friends who have migrated to Supertopo or other forums for precisely the same reason. Curt What would you suggest, then, to maybe bring that traffic back? How could we as a (whole) community revive great discussion here?
I'm not sure it's possible. As others have pointed out, there are many options for online interaction today that weren't yet popular in the heyday of RC.com. Facebook, Supertopo and other venues have certainly taken users from this site--and it may be hard to get them back. I think that depends both on what this site becomes and on how satisfied those users are with the sites where they post today.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Nov 7, 2013, 10:10 PM
Post #207 of 430
(10226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
In reply to: It could very well be that the decline in RC.com user participation has more than one cause--in fact, I'd bet on it.
I will agree with you there. Just like most epics in climbing, it's often a series of small poor decisions that end up getting a story bad enough to make it into ANAM
In reply to: I'm merely pointing out that "bullying" is not why any of my friends have left the site.
I would guess the majority of your friends were climbing well before the internet came into use by the general public. They had already built their friendships and to have some anonymous wanker stalking them online wouldn't have the same impact as it might for someone who started climbing only a year or two ago(no matter their actual age)m who is more apt to see the online forums as an extension of their social life.
In reply to: ... for the Supertopo forums, I'm curious how that's working out for them?
From the perspective of some of the ones who have been azzes on this site, I should have been laughed right off of Supertopo, and yet it hasn't been the case at all. I'm accepted as one of the ST regulars. It might be, in my case, because I actually have met many of the people who frequent that forum, but I agree that coming in with a modicum of respect goes a long way.
At one time, there were people one would hold in regards here, but these days, there's just a very few who would fall into that category.
It's interesting to point out that none of the younger(than Supertopo) climbers who are pushing the boundaries of climbing post here. But - where DO they post? It's not like they avoid the web.... These people generally are posting/publishing their own stuff directly -on Facebook, blogs or on sponsored blogs. Maybe one direction for RC.com to draw in some energy might be to sponsor some of the up and coming climbers.....?
(This post was edited by happiegrrrl on Nov 7, 2013, 10:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ncrockclimber
Nov 7, 2013, 10:23 PM
Post #208 of 430
(10216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2006
Posts: 286
|
cracklover wrote: Nice cupping. I climbed with Curt a few years ago and found him to drink all my beers, not offer me any of his best whiskey, and crush me like a bug on the boulders. Bastard. I guess I'd still climb with him though. G 
LOL! I am sure that he climbs harder than me too. However, if he drank me beer and didn't offer me his good whiskey I'd be pissed!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 7, 2013, 10:30 PM
Post #209 of 430
(10211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
ncrockclimber wrote: cracklover wrote: Nice cupping. I climbed with Curt a few years ago and found him to drink all my beers, not offer me any of his best whiskey, and crush me like a bug on the boulders. Bastard. I guess I'd still climb with him though. G LOL! I am sure that he climbs harder than me too. However, if he drank me beer and didn't offer me his good whiskey I'd be pissed!
I categorically deny that. I did not drink ALL his beers. 
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Nov 7, 2013, 11:56 PM
Post #210 of 430
(10172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
lena_chita wrote: macherry wrote: social media sites have replaced certain aspects of rc.com....especially community. but, if it weren't for rc.com in the first place, i wouldn't have these connections. there was a vibrant rc.com community that was relatively easy to join. but, with users not using or staying on the site, it's hard to build community or a user base that sticks around. This is true. But what is the remedy, if there is one? Some of it seems to be just a normal lifecycle of an internet forum. New people join, old people leave. And it doesn't happen at a steady-state level, there are usually waves. There has to be a sizeable group of people who still enthusiastically answer 'which shoes' question. There has to be a sizeable group of people willing to meet new people. Most of the users responding to this thread are neither.
i guess that's the million dollar question. i've seen the turnover throughout the years, but it seems the last few years there's been fewer and fewer users that stick around to regularly post.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 8, 2013, 12:02 AM
Post #211 of 430
(10171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
happiegrrrl wrote: From the perspective of some of the ones who have been azzes on this site, I should have been laughed right off of Supertopo, and yet it hasn't been the case at all. I'm accepted as one of the ST regulars. It might be, in my case, because I actually have met many of the people who frequent that forum, but I agree that coming in with a modicum of respect goes a long way.
^^^ This. And frankly Happie, meeting them in person isn't needed; the key to surviving on ST is having a modicum of respect and humility.
happiegrrrl wrote: At one time, there were people one would hold in regards here, but these days, there's just a very few who would fall into that category.
Oddly, they all seem to have gravitated to Supertopo. Which isn't surprising, given all their old friends are there. Amazes me how often lately someone I'd only ever read about has been suddenly showing up and participating. Frankly I attribute that to the purge over there. Much fewer assholes, more participation from folks who otherwise couldn't be bothered. I might also point out that these are the sort of folks that Curt was name dropping.
happiegrrrl wrote: It's interesting to point out that none of the younger(than Supertopo) climbers who are pushing the boundaries of climbing post here. But - where DO they post? It's not like they avoid the web.... These people generally are posting/publishing their own stuff directly -on Facebook, blogs or on sponsored blogs. Maybe one direction for RC.com to draw in some energy might be to sponsor some of the up and coming climbers.....?
Very good question, and touches on something I posted earlier. I have more to say on the subject and this is a good lead in, but unfortunately don't have time at the moment as I have to put my daughter to bed. Will return to it shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 8, 2013, 12:55 AM
Post #212 of 430
(10146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: notapplicable wrote: The inmates can run this asylum just fine. Get your own advice or go back to page... ... aw crap, it suddenly becomes practical. 
You know I skim your posts. We've been over this.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Nov 8, 2013, 1:14 AM
Post #213 of 430
(10134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
adatesman wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: From the perspective of some of the ones who have been azzes on this site, I should have been laughed right off of Supertopo, and yet it hasn't been the case at all. I'm accepted as one of the ST regulars. It might be, in my case, because I actually have met many of the people who frequent that forum, but I agree that coming in with a modicum of respect goes a long way. ^^^ This. And frankly Happie, meeting them in person isn't needed; the key to surviving on ST is having a modicum of respect and humility. happiegrrrl wrote: At one time, there were people one would hold in regards here, but these days, there's just a very few who would fall into that category. Oddly, they all seem to have gravitated to Supertopo. Which isn't surprising, given all their old friends are there. Amazes me how often lately someone I'd only ever read about has been suddenly showing up and participating. Frankly I attribute that to the purge over there. Much fewer assholes, more participation from folks who otherwise couldn't be bothered. I might also point out that these are the sort of folks that Curt was name dropping. happiegrrrl wrote: It's interesting to point out that none of the younger(than Supertopo) climbers who are pushing the boundaries of climbing post here. But - where DO they post? It's not like they avoid the web.... These people generally are posting/publishing their own stuff directly -on Facebook, blogs or on sponsored blogs. Maybe one direction for RC.com to draw in some energy might be to sponsor some of the up and coming climbers.....? Very good question, and touches on something I posted earlier. I have more to say on the subject and this is a good lead in, but unfortunately don't have time at the moment as I have to put my daughter to bed. Will return to it shortly.
I find it odd Aric that you quit this site in a rather dramatic manor then return to explain how it should change so it can be just like other sites that currently exist on the web. There's a reason why there's a number of us long time users who are still active posters on RC.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Nov 8, 2013, 1:22 AM
Post #214 of 430
(10124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
notapplicable wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: notapplicable wrote: The inmates can run this asylum just fine. Get your own advice or go back to page... ... aw crap, it suddenly becomes practical. You know I skim your posts. We've been over this.
I'm sad. 
But this has been a great read. +1 for the first good discussion in a couple of years.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 8, 2013, 1:31 AM
Post #215 of 430
(10115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
adatesman wrote: Afraid I have to admit to going <creepy stalker> on you Jeff, and have an honest question.... Were you an active RC user prior to purchasing the site? Given your background, the cynic in me is wondering if the purchase was driven by an interest in rock climbing and desire to turn the place around, or simply because your expertise is such that you'll succeed where NameMedia and D4DR failed?
Bumping this because I think most everyone here is missing the obvious. Why would Jeff buy the site without the expectation to make money from it?
I don't know the guy, but frankly it's not that hard to find out about him. I have little doubt he'll find a way to monetize the site, as that's more than kinda what he does. I'd hazard a guess that more than a few would argue he's rewriting the book on that sort of thing.
Bicker as you will about the direction the site should take, but fact of the matter is that ever since the... shit.... what was it called when users could pony up cash to get stars by their names? Sponsored User? Site Sponsor? Doesn't matter. Ever since that program went away when DDT first bought the site the only thing that kept the lights on was ad revenue.
Which, I might point out, is exactly why DDT bought the site. He needed a larger userbase to negotiate higher ad rates for DropZone, and found an easy way to do it by way of RC. If you don't believe me I suggest you go digging through the Archive and see what rrrrAdam has to say about it. My recollection is that rrrrAdam was a part-owner, but could be he was just a site admin. Either way, he eventually talked about a lot of the behind the scenes stuff in Soapbox.
Anyway, that worked out fine for a while, and DDT (or him and Sangrio? I forget.) was (were) able to parlay that investment into cashing out to NameMedia. NameMedia then put j_ung in charge, and everything was great. Everyone was happy, community was thriving... But....
The site wasn't hitting ad revenue numbers. And NameMedia was *this* close to simply turning off the lights. As in the decision to simply turn off the server(s?) had been made and DDT managed to top it by way of taking back daily administration of the site. I strongly suspect there was a clause or two in the sales contract to NameMedia that stipulated this and money changed hands, but that's pure speculation on my part. That said, I did personally speak with people at NameMedia at while this was going on and they denied ownership of the site and referred me back to DDT personally in regards to enforcing copyright.
Anyway, this then leads us to Jeff New Boss. Having figured out what he does for a living, it's pretty clear this thread is *entirely* market research and a way to figure out how best to monetize the site. I don't doubt for a moment he actually climbs (pictures aren't hard to find), but given what he does I have no doubt that he's not looking to keep the lights on as a public service. If he was, he'd have mentioned being a longtime user by now.
But he hasn't. Which means that this entire thread is market research to determine how to achieve the best ROI on his purchase. Very shrewd move on his part, and I'm very curious to see how it falls out.
On a side note, given the string of 1-stars I'm still seeing after all these years I have to say I don't particularly care if someone thinks I'm too thin skinned or egocentric to play nice on an Internet forum. Fact is I get along just fine and am merely lamenting the fact that the system was never fully implemented. The intent was for it to drive search results, which clearly would have lead to a FAQ, and then a Wiki, had RC not been adrift for years. And if any of the above is news to you, then perhaps you should revisit your judgement of my pulling content. There are no free rides on the Internet. No matter what you do, ultimately someone is being paid for it. I built up The Lab because it amused me, and DDT profited from it monetarily. Just as Jeff's going to profit from whatever direction RC takes. Our content is being bought and sold, yet here we are quibbling over nuances of what makes "community" and what dives the site. All the while ignoring the fact that *money* drives the site, and without it the site wouldn't exist.
Off my soapbox, and thinking at this point I might no longer be on Jeff's New Boss's good side. I'm ok with that, as without major changes I don't think there's hope of me coming back. (yay!)
Anyway, Jeff New Boss, being the impatient outsider sort I figured tossing what I recall of the history of the site out for correction and consensus would be better than simply giving you just my version in person and forcing you to make heads and tails of conflicting stories later on. If you still want to talk, you have my number. Dunno there's much else I have to say on the matter of RC that hasn't been put in this thread or our PM's.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 8, 2013, 1:37 AM
Post #216 of 430
(10111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
granite_grrl wrote: I find it odd Aric that you quit this site in a rather dramatic manor then return to explain how it should change so it can be just like other sites that currently exist on the web. There's a reason why there's a number of us long time users who are still active posters on RC.com.
Perhaps the TL;DR I just posted explains it?
Fact of the matter is I'm bitter. I bought into the vision of what RC could be, only to see it crash and burn.
And as I said in the TL;DR, ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does. And if the site could be self sustaining as it is, it wouldn't have been for sale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 8, 2013, 1:59 AM
Post #219 of 430
(10087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: granite_grrl wrote: I find it odd Aric that you quit this site in a rather dramatic manor then return to explain how it should change so it can be just like other sites that currently exist on the web. There's a reason why there's a number of us long time users who are still active posters on RC.com. Fact of the matter is I'm bitter. I bought into the vision of what RC could be, only to see it crash and burn.
it's pretty clear you're still bitter. The fact is you locked horns with the previous management and they did not agree with you. In their opinion, you were wrong and you lost.
adatesman wrote: ...ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does.
That's where there is obviously a large difference of opinion. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to think that Jeff cares something about providing a product that caters to real rock climbers--otherwise, if page hits and revenue are the only things that matter, he may as well just convert RC.com to a porn site.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Nov 8, 2013, 1:59 AM
Post #220 of 430
(10080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
happiegrrrl wrote: granite_grrl wrote: There's nothing to post to on this site anymore. Could that be because.... In reply to: ....over the last two years this place became increasingly more toxic and the "noise" generated by a few high-post count users drowned out the rest of the community and climbing content. As a result, the majority of users stopped participating.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Nov 8, 2013, 2:07 AM
Post #221 of 430
(10072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: granite_grrl wrote: I find it odd Aric that you quit this site in a rather dramatic manor then return to explain how it should change so it can be just like other sites that currently exist on the web. There's a reason why there's a number of us long time users who are still active posters on RC.com. Fact of the matter is I'm bitter. I bought into the vision of what RC could be, only to see it crash and burn. it's pretty clear you're still bitter. The fact is you locked horns with the previous management and they did not agree with you. In their opinion, you were wrong and you lost. adatesman wrote: ...ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does. That's where there is obviously a large difference of opinion. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to think that Jeff cares something about providing a product that caters to real rock climbers--otherwise, if page hits and revenue are the only things that matter, he may as well just convert RC.com to a porn site. Curt
Hmmm, _ockclimbing.com?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 8, 2013, 2:07 AM
Post #222 of 430
(10072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: ...ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does. That's where there is obviously a large difference of opinion. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to think that Jeff cares something about providing a product that caters to real rock climbers--otherwise, if page hits and revenue are the only things that matter, he may as well just convert RC.com to a porn site. Curt
I take it then you've not worked your MENSA google-fu and figured out who Jeff is? Evidence is there if you care to look for it.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 8, 2013, 2:10 AM
Post #223 of 430
(10070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: ...ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does. That's where there is obviously a large difference of opinion. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to think that Jeff cares something about providing a product that caters to real rock climbers--otherwise, if page hits and revenue are the only things that matter, he may as well just convert RC.com to a porn site. Curt I take it then you've not worked your MENSA google-fu and figured out who Jeff is? Evidence is there if you care to look for it.
Aric, Yes I do know who Jeff is. I'll still stand by my above comment.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 8, 2013, 2:12 AM
Post #224 of 430
(10066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: ...ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does. That's where there is obviously a large difference of opinion. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to think that Jeff cares something about providing a product that caters to real rock climbers--otherwise, if page hits and revenue are the only things that matter, he may as well just convert RC.com to a porn site. Curt I take it then you've not worked your MENSA google-fu and figured out who Jeff is? Evidence is there if you care to look for it. Aric, Yes I do know who Jeff is. I'll still stand by my above comment. Curt
Well then Curt, I can only point you to the OP, where Jeff clearly states he wants nothing to do with porn.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 8, 2013, 2:33 AM
Post #225 of 430
(10038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: ...ultimately the remaining long time active posters don't matter. Ad revenue does. That's where there is obviously a large difference of opinion. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to think that Jeff cares something about providing a product that caters to real rock climbers--otherwise, if page hits and revenue are the only things that matter, he may as well just convert RC.com to a porn site. Curt I take it then you've not worked your MENSA google-fu and figured out who Jeff is? Evidence is there if you care to look for it. Aric, Yes I do know who Jeff is. I'll still stand by my above comment. Curt Well then Curt, I can only point you to the OP, where Jeff clearly states he wants nothing to do with porn.
I'm not sure you actually understood my comment.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
