![]() |
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1234 6> |
Author | ||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
|
There are not two copies of the thread. When a thread gets moved it is moved in its entirety. Sometimes the Admins will leave a "moved" marker-link icon in the old location so that people can still find the thread after the move. This is like going to your favourite book-store and finding a "We have moved" notice in the empty shop window. You would think of this as a helpful courtesy that they have added the address of the new shop location to that note. The two icons are different - the moved icon in the old location has an arrow on it to show it has been moved. This is the default-setting of the forum software, the Admins don't have to leave a moved icon behind but it is courtesy to do so. The icon should be removed after a few days once people have become accustomed to the new location but this is not an automatic process, the Admin has to remember to do it manually, sometimes they forget, other times they can't be bothered to remember (these are normal human things because Admins are normal humans [in the main]). This stops the "Why did you delete my thread?" complaints from those whose thread got moved but they subsequently couldn't find. Of course it doesn't stop the "Why did you move my thread?" complaints, or either complaint from those who simply forgot where they left it.
|
||
What?
|
||
![]() |
||
richardh ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() ![]() Joined: February 18 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 26252 |
![]() |
|
No problem with it being moved accept that it just end up being in two places as the same time (you will still be able to access it via this forum) while I will end up up on a different forum. I assume its not possible to completely delete a thread from one forum and restate it on another forum?
|
||
![]() |
||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
|
![]() When you give me two examples, one of that uses Google AdSense and one that doesn't, then it wasn't the point you made even if it was the one you thought you were making. In that respect I'm still waiting on an example of how to run the PA without using Google advertising and without censoring album covers. These "other sites" are not comparable. Other people have pointed out alternatives to Google AdSense without attacking Max or calling him a hypocrite. No one has shown that those alternatives would pay the monthly operational costs each month and every month, and if they do not then they are not viable alternatives. If they do not work for this site then they're not alternatives at all. If there isn't an alternative then there isn't a choice to be made. Voluntary donations (à la Wikipeda) do not work for this site - this has been a "donation" site for over 10 years, for the past 4 years has sold advertising space directly and in the past has tried 'industry' sponsorship (and what jolly fun that was). None of these generate enough income to run the site, it still needs the revenue from AdSense-type advertising to operate. There is another choice that can be made here - in the rarefied atmosphere of Progressive Rock websites there are alternatives you can use, (ProgEars, GPER, ProgressoR, ProgressiveWorld, ProGGnosis, etc). So is it hypocrisy to continue using PA when there are other [Prog] sites that do not use Google advertising and do not censor album covers? That question can only be answered if they are comparable and if they really are alternatives to PA. In my estimation in both instances they are not - they are fine and noble sites and I'll not criticise them here, but you cannot make like-for-like comparisons between them so they are not really alternatives. |
||
What?
|
||
![]() |
||
rogerthat ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
![]() |
|
And no more did I defend Google. I am only defending their right to make such arrangements as they please. As Logan said, if the terms on which Google would like to put up their ads on websites are not agreeable, then the website is free to opt out of it. If it's not feasible, accept their terms but to say that it's not feasible to operate without Google Ads and yet Google ought to offer them and pay PA on PA's own terms alone is neither here nor there. It's not Google's fault alone that people are unreasonably addicted to free access websites (though it was evidently in their interest to push for this to seal their dominance). We have consciously made that choice by shunning most websites that try to operate on a subscription basis.
|
||
![]() |
||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
|
...and I missed out "butt", I'm evidently not the arseman I thought I was, back to the tits and boobies for me then. ![]() ![]() |
||
What?
|
||
![]() |
||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
|
^ that's not agreeing with Logan. While he attacks Max for the choice he made, he is not defending Google for theirs. It's a different argument (and a different hypocrisy).
|
||
What?
|
||
![]() |
||
rogerthat ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
![]() |
|
OK, let me chip in with a lone voice in agreement with thellama. Goes to show that there are indeed no free lunches. We, I mean a general we here and not just PA, have been bigtime hypocrites for believing that you could have a world where intellectual property could move freely and in fact the very idea of expecting consideration for its transfer was unfair and that there would be no price to pay in exchange. Obviously, Google is just a business corporation - and I don't know that they have ever pretended otherwise - and they have now begun to extract their pound of flesh. I would like to see what is it that people choose now - censorship or free access. I am pretty sure $$ is going to win the day but then don't blame Google for that. We have known for some time now that they obtain our personal data and sell it to governments for possibly a princely sum. How many of us have actually stopped using Google in protest? If privacy and/or censorship are that important, then walk the talk. You can't have it all.
|
||
![]() |
||
thellama73 ![]() Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
![]() |
|
They wouldn't. That was my point. That there is a way to run a website without using google advertising and without censoring album covers. I'm not suggesting that way would work for this site. Just that other sites have managed to do it. |
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Triceratopsoil ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: April 03 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 17995 |
![]() |
|
Dean you got "rump" in there twice
|
||
![]() |
||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
|
![]() Do you think it is possible to scale Wiki's business models down by a factor of 10,000 to finance the PA? AllMusic use Google AdSense, is ranked 2693rd in the world and they do not censor the specific album cover that we received the warning over (John Zorn Filmworks XXI). Now either AllMusic are unaware that they have contravened Google's T&C or Google are turning a blind-eye for whatever reason. However, what AllMusic has not done is made a choice to censor images or not use Google advertising. FaceBook uses Google advertising, is ranked 2nd in the world and does not censor John Zorn's Filmworks XXI cover. Now either FaceBook is unaware that it has contravened Google's T&C or Google are turning a blind-eye for whatever reason. However, what FaceBook has not done is made a choice to censor images or not use Google advertising. It is curious that Google (ranked 1st in the world) should go after low-ranking websites like RYM, PA and DiS and completely miss the site that's ranked 2nd in the world. You know me, I'm Mr Cynical, so perhaps it's the kind of free market corporate bullying that brings to mind this once-popular 1970's Athena Poster: ![]() |
||
What?
|
||
![]() |
||
thellama73 ![]() Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
![]() |
|
I don't think I am owed anything. I don't expect Max to provide a service for free. I never said that. I said the exact opposite. I said that I don't resent his decision to comply with Google's demands rather than pulling their ads. It's perfectly understandable. My only point was that it is disingenuous to blame Google and not Max for a policy we don't like, since both play a role in making thta policy possible. I view relationships as voluntary when they are voluntary. There is no power differential because there is no power involved. Google is under no obligation to give Max money for anything. If they choose to do so, they are free to set the terms, which he is then free to accept or deny. @Dean: the site I had in mind was AllMusic. They don't censor album covers. Neither does Wikipedia. Surely those are big enough entities to have caught Google's notice, yet they sustain themselves without resorting to user fees. @ExittheLemming: thank you, sir, for your understanding and patience. I admit that I overreacted too. I was cranky. Thank you for not burning my house down. That takes real class. :) |
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
ExittheLemming ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
![]() |
|
No offense taken Llama styled libertarian critter. As is the norm in such matters, I suffer a surfeit of the normally dormant but latent caustic virus that swims my rodent bloodstream. I apologise for overreacting and call me a sentimental old boobie if you will, but I have already cancelled plans to have your home torched and pets slaughtered. |
||
![]() |
||
The Doctor ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
![]() |
|
No offense intended Logan, but you view all relationships as voluntary when the economic realities of the situation often dictate the nature of those relationships. Sure, Max could use all of his own money to fund the site, but why should he do that? He does not owe us anything, not even an explanation for why things are the way they are. We are not his customers. We are getting a free ride here. And the truth of the matter is there is an inherent power differential at play here borne out of economic truths which you usually fail to take into consideration.
|
||
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
||
![]() |
||
ExittheLemming ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
![]() |
|
^ Every single business entity on the planet wishes
(covertly or otherwise) that the Internet were configured to be 'pay per
view'. Although I don't see that becoming a reality in my life time (I'm 52) it's really a question of when NOT if. Similarly, every single business entity on the planet
covertly desires a monopoly while overtly opposing one under the
platitudinous cloaking device that they are 'detrimental to
competitiveness'
I'm not pretending to act as any sort of 'Devil's Advocate' here but we are so inured to expecting 'free stuff' via the Internet that when a business takes the entirely reasonable step of charging us for a provided service, we seem to get our netherwear in a knot and start proclaiming that we are entitled to 'free stuff' because of the medium? The analogy that browsing the net is identical to window shopping is now utterly spurious because unlike the passivity of the latter, interaction and exchanges of information are now integral to the former. Edited by ExittheLemming - July 25 2014 at 10:04 |
||
![]() |
||
JD ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: February 07 2009 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 18375 |
![]() |
|
A reasonable explanation. But what it tells me is that Google is not in support of a FREE Internet system but is as hypocritical as most big businesses are when it comes to consumer desires/acceptance vs profit margins. Please remember, advertisers are NOT consumers, they are clients. Well, they do consume the public's money, but that's a whole different thread. ![]() |
||
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
||
![]() |
||
chopper ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 19957 |
![]() |
|
|
||
![]() |
||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
|
RYM censors Pros & Cons and many other album covers with flagable content. By default they censor the cover by not showing it. RYM also relies on Google AdWords for its revenue and that is their solution. They also chose to censor and keep Google AdWords. Yup - that's a business decision. The warning notice that Max received from Google AdWords gave him 72 hours to comply or they would remove all their advertising from all our pages. Sure that is a choice, it's just a tad one-sided. We are not the only site that has received this warning and we were not the first. A link earlier in this thread tells of Drowned In Sounds experiences with Google AdWords, back in October last year I found other examples. Obviously sites that innocently show album covers that fall fowl of AdWords terms and conditions will continue showing them until they receive a similar direct warning from Google. You cannot cite these as examples of sites that have chosen not to censor the images - they are examples of sites that (like us prior to Oct 2013) are not aware that they should. |
||
What?
|
||
![]() |
||
Argonaught ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: June 04 2012 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1413 |
![]() |
|
I am wondering if the vigilant moderators are going to take a quick look at the recent onslaught on Heaven and Earth by Yes.
The album isn't a masterpiece of any genre, let alone prog, and I recognize that some people would genuinely feel it's a one-star effort, but .. .. here is what I couldn't help noticing, looking at the reviews, posted in the past couple of weeks: User [email protected], joined 7/19, posted a one-star review of Heaven and Earth on the same day, and has never posted anything or visited since User GUILLAMENE, joined 7/21, posted a one-star review of Heaven and Earth on the same day, and has never posted anything or visited since User FENMAN, joined 7/16, posted a one-star review of Heaven and Earth on the same day, and has never posted anything or visited since User CHAOZWAVES, joined 7/14, posted a one-star review of Heaven and Earth on 7/16 and has never posted anything or visited since
A while ago there was a discussion about abusive reviews and I was among those who aired and supported the ideas of one- and five-star quotas on reviewers with low participation level to weed out the folks who I still think that new members shouldn't be allowed to post any one- and five-star reviews until they have established themselves as bona fide contributors, with let's say 10 reviews minimum, and the proportion of extreme reviews should be further limited to maybe 20% of the number of reviews they publish until the member reaches the 100 mark. Edited by Argonaught - July 25 2014 at 06:50 |
||
![]() |
||
thellama73 ![]() Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
![]() |
|
I realize that the admins have no choice in the matter and I'm sorry if I've offended you. What I was reacting to was the fact that the first page of this thread is littered with apologists claiming "it's not PA's fault" and "there's nothing PA can do about it" which is patently false. There are other music sites on the web with more traffic and more bandwidth requirements than this one that don't censor album covers. It's a choice, as is any business decision. Again, I don't have a problem with Max making that choice. It's perfectly legitimate. I do have a problem with abdication of responsibility, though. I guess my frustration was misdirected towards people who don't deserve it, but Max isn't here so you guys get to hear me vent instead. ;) |
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Atavachron ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 64520 |
![]() |
|
^ ^ And will probably sell these sites someday, I assume.
Edited by Atavachron - July 25 2014 at 05:37 |
||
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1234 6> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |