Pop-up ads on photo.net?

<em> Is the intention to make this a business, fulltime affair? </em>

<p>

You think it's a hobby?

Brian, what about a definite limited time trial for non-subscribers?

 

When I first started using the site, (as a guest) I did what many people probably do, in the way of surfing to find the niche I belonged in, making occaisional comments and asking a few questions. It took me months to decide that I wanted to support the site. Perhaps a six month trial would be worth considering.

 

I know that if I were told I needed to pay up or get out at this stage, I would subscribe. The few forums I visit are, for the most part, very enjoyable, and there is one in particular I just won't miss. I have friends there, and I don't want to miss their blather any more than I want to be limited in posting my own nonsense. It's worth the sub price.

 

Of course, maybe (or probably) you've already thought of all this.

Well, this is depressing. I just popped back after a while away, and photo.net is ad-laden and subscriber-mostly-only. Yuk for me. I always enjoyed the forums, etc.

 

Now, don't worry Bob, I know you are an upstanding guy. I know you have to pay the bills. But as an infreqent user, I certainly can't justify a subscription. In addition, I'm really annoyed by ads like this (though the day-pass is nicer than Salon's). This isn't photo.net's fault. It just means I'm going to be coming here a lot less. Only when I need targeted info, not for the community.

 

Like I said, Yuk for me.

Just to avoid any confusion, I don't pay any bills. Brian and Rajeev run photo net, take in all the revenue and pay all the bills. I'm just a lowly worker ant here. I don't get a cut of the profits (assuming there are any).

When I first saw the add, I thought that photo.net was going the way of yahoo. I am extremely annoyed by the yahoo adds on groups (and even more by the format), but I still read some yahoo!groups for some hard-to-find information.

<p>

After learning that those adds are time-limited, I find that extremely reasonable, and I am frankly surprised at all this outcry. Maybe it would help to mention on the page where those adds appear that they are time limited ?

<p>

As for the statement that sites are either membership funded or advertisement-funded, it misses a third category: sites that are funded by direct sales of products and services. This includes

<a href = "http://luminous-landscape.com">luminous-landscape.com</a> and <a href = "http://terragalleria.com">terragalleria.com</a>, as well as a number of other photographer sites. Maybe something worth thinking about ?