Printable View
i just dont like the feeling i get from the new people, i mean regardless of weather they mean it or not, the stupid thing with the top 10 antipoint earners, adn how they have 1000 posts without posting that many times.. that ****, it jsut seems like there trying to be big men and show off to us without giving us anything to go by, i dont doubt that they know what there doing, i just dont like the belittlement that we seem to get from them, im gonna say again even if they dont meanit, its there
This is not what happened. What happened is that when some people thought it would be fun to neg on the new owners, in order to overcome the negative points, we had to change the number of antipoints some of us had. There wasn't any change to the number of posts.Quote:
how they have 1000 posts without posting that many times..
Believe me, no one here is trying to claim posts they didn't earn or is being dishonest about anything. As soon as someone pointed out the unexpected result of having all of those points (ie, they appeared among the top point earners), we adjusted the AP. We also by then had learned of other technical means to protect against negging.
The only reason the points were added was because we didn't have another way of adjusting for the point negging.
I think many people recognize that when someone has a good suggestion about how to make the site more valuable as a community of people interested in security, we're doing it.
We can't give you a master plan because we're listening to what people tell us. Now, we can't just grant every request -- the current software has limits. But when something makes sense, we're doing it. Like the logo contest -- people here said they could do better, so we're throwing it out as a contest to see if someone here can do better.
I don't think it was a dishonest attempt. Nor do I think it was done as an attempt to belittle anyone. There is an assumption that because JUPM is a corporate entity they are evil or corrupt or.. fill-in-evil-thought-here. This isn't necessarily true and strikes me as an assumption.Quote:
Originally posted here by JupMan
This is not what happened. What happened is that when some people thought it would be fun to neg on the new owners, in order to overcome the negative points, we had to change the number of antipoints some of us had. There wasn't any change to the number of posts.
Believe me, no one here is trying to claim posts they didn't earn or is being dishonest about anything.
However, to be accurate, there is one member of the JUPM team that did change his post count:
I think that there has been a bit of getting on the wrong foot as well as people being extremely resitent to change, especially when they feel they aren't informed of when, how and why the changes will occur. That said, I don't come here to worry about what changes will occur. I came here and still come here because of the security discussions. That is what the site is about and what the members who make a difference are about as well. I come here to learn, as there is always something new for me to learn.Quote:
From intmon's profile
Posts: 1010
[ 21.52 posts per day ]
[0.17% of total posts]
Keep this in mind: the members make up the community. If you leave the site, you hur the community. If you stay, you add to it. JUPM can never take that away. They may change, alter, squiggle, squaggle, etc. the environment which we communicate in but the community, if it's as strong as I believe it is, should last no matter what the communication method is or looks like.
i said that regardless of wheather or not they ment it thats what i felt like, the fact that you came in here and xplained it makes things seem a lot better, your no longer seem to be some unknow mysterious force, but a real person that i can relate more to, thank you and im sorry if i got a little uptight, but some of people that commented to me about it kinda pissed me off,
like invader said i jsut want yo uto talk to us, and not be behind the scenes, like some sort of watchdog.
MsMittens is correct Jupman, I needed to have get into the Addict's forum for a look around and couldn't get in without pumping up my post number. That said, I've changed it back to it's real number, and must state that I didn't mean to offend anyone by doing this--just needed to validate the use of the forum.
You have to give them credit for the fact that with somethings that really pissed us off they fixed it, I.E. the top ten AP earners list. Not that I'm a huge fan of the way things are going, but if you're going to criticize the bad, let's not forget the good as well.
Now...I do have a question I'd like an honest yes or no answer to, and not a lot of corporate BS about maybe at some point in the future, we haven't decided what is in the best interest of the site, blah blah blah...but I've looked at some of the other sites, and talked to a few people and it appears that JupMedia does on occasion charge a fee for access to an entire site. I'd like to know if that is in the future for AO?
Deb
Nope, we will not be charging folks for access to the site. We do have several sites like that, such as WinDrivers.com, but this will not be one of them. Straight.
I stand corrected re: the post count. But I hope people see it was simply a work-around and done to help keep the site running.
As intmon said, there is no plan to charge for the site --- it would not work and we'd be crazy to try.
A site like this needs to be free -- if we charged, someone would launch a competitive site in about 5 minutes. At the other sites where we charge $ for content or services it is because we are producing something unique that is expensive to maintain.
At Antinonline, Jupitermedia is really just acting as a host and the company's role is to make sure the community has the platform to share information. We know there is no way this community would ever be viable as paid site -- that is clear for as long as anyone could see into the future.
The one thing we do want to do over time is have links to other types of relevant content -- security news and other technology news -- but not in a way that would interfere with the discussion forums. And, over time, to try and improve some of the features (like antipoints) in ways that most people will consider them an improvement.
I believe that is the only "grand plan" for the site -- and it's pretty much the same thing I was saying a few weeks ago when we had the first discussions about what Jupitermedia would do with Antionline.
thank you for talking to us, thats all i was asking for,
Thanks very much for your answers. They were the ones I was really hoping to hear. I'm glad there are no plans to make that kind of changes, because I'm afraid it would be really detrimental to the site. ;)
Deb