I just had a squiz at the pop up survey. I got a few questions into it before realising that it has nothing to do with improving this site, but is just fodder for a market research consultancy.

Presumably, OLO is paid to host the survey.

Is all of that correct, GrahamY?

No, it is not correct. The survey is for On Line Opinion's use in defining our demographic so that we can show advertisers that they ought to be on our site and that they ought to be prepared to pay a fair price for it.

On Line Opinion provides free commentary and analysis and a vibrant forum, but it can't do it on thin air. So we sell advertising on the site. Generally speaking advertisers are happy with the response rate on the site. Advertising seems to perform better on sites with which readers feel they have a connection or an affinity.

But at the moment the advertising revenue from the site does not keep up with the cost of running it. That cost includes a full-time editor, web hosting and some site and server maintenance and hosting costs. It doesn't include me. The shortfall is made up out of the pockets of people associated with me.

So everyone is anxious to improve this situation. The survey is one way of doing this. I hope if it pops up again you will complete it.

Stop being such a stingy bugger. OLO doesn't just happen for free. It beats donating cash!

Yes some free speech is not free.
Surely it is understood?
Some of us can afford to help why not do so?
Many a forum has folded lets hope not this one.
Ever.

My Google bar blocks any pop ups, they were driving me nuts when
I tried to read the news at SMH etc. So I can't really comment
on this one.

Meantime I've often wondered about the economics about a service such
as OLO, which I greatly appreciate.

I see huge potential in what Graham and friends are doing, in fields
such as agriculture, where people travel huge distances to get to
meetings, at great expense. Forums would be a far more cost effective
way of people communicating, especially in agriculture, where
people are spread out over huge distances. State Govts, Depts
of Agriculture etc, should be knocking down his doors for that
kind of service and there is no reason why it should not generate
a profit.

Meantime, when the OLO server crashes, I again start to wonder if
economics is the problem, despite all those possibilities.

If a cash donation can fix it, I would certainly be willing to make
one, but my contribution would only be one of many and it needs
a solid business plan, if things are as rough as Graham has stated.

I certainly value the role of OLO and appreciate the service.
I'd appreciate more input from Graham as to how things really
stand in finanacial terms and what we can all do, if required.

I like that post yabby, it is balanced.
Maybe an e mail to GY?
We all of us need to understand profit was never the intent of the forum.
I doubt it ever would be possible to make one.
And that GY is a conservative who allows such as me, a realist, space.
Who could ever fiancé a forum that did not have pop ups?
I do not see the poll but willingly would fill it in if it was in polls.
The day will come that sees me unable to support OLO, but not yet.
Each of us who can should.

What actually triggers the pop-up survey, GrahamY? I got the impression that I must have moused-over something when I first saw it, but I couldn't see what that might have been.

Is the survey only activated for registered logged-in OLO users, or is it capable of being completed by persons simply viewing the site? Would I be correct in thinking that the survey can only effectively be responded to once for each IP address connection to OLO, with the object of minimizing any attempts at deliberately skewing the data?



If users, and hopefully, viewers, can be told where to go for the survey, OLO may get a better response to it.



That puts me in mind of the graffiti campaign waged some years ago when Rudolph Hess was still alive and in Spandau prison. "Free Hess" demanded the graffiti on wall after wall. One response I saw was, "where do you get this free Hess?"

Digressing slightly in the direction taken by Yabby, and mindful of the server problems of recent days, one aspect of cost saving that OLO may be able to implement may be with respect to software licensing fees. New OLO user BrianHowes, who would appear to have some considerable expertise in matters digital and internet-related, has observed, in connection with the recent 'Server error' debacle, that OLO needs a better, more secure, and more robust operating system.



Ubuntu Linux is free. (Like Hess. Hehe.)



For I think primarily security reasons, the French government some time ago adopted the Mandriva Linux distribution as its operating system. By way of contrast, it seems the Swiss government did not, with the seemingly inevitable result. See:

http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/recent/media/single.html?id=29701

Free as Ubuntu Linux is, it is not unsupported. Canonical Ltd is able to provide paid professional support for the free OS it sponsors where a professional standard of performance, as, for example, at OLO, is required. Might be worth looking into Graham, not only for possible license fee savings, but for server robustness, aye.

Hi Forrest. Thanks for the suggestions. The survey should only be triggered for each user once. It's not an issue of anyone trying to game it - can't see why they would bother. It is an issue of trying to get a more or less random sample, which is one reason why we wouldn't email current users for whom we have an email address with a url for the questionnaire as that would skew the result.

Also appreciate the promises of support etc from everyone. I'm thinking of putting together some sort of a plan for redesigning the site and pricing it and then doing a fund-raising project to realise that project. I'll keep you posted.

Graham, may I suggest you have a talk to Neil at http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/ for some ideas about designing a robust high-volume site? That's a really excellent example of the genre and he now carries a pretty good volume of advertising without intruding on the user experience in any negative way.

BTW: It was a pretty dumbass survey. There was no option for 'I don't read any of those offline papers' just 'unsure' (or something like that. I'm unsure whether I read the paper?).

Also they cant fathom that someone only reads online news papers? The online list didn't have any of the off-line papers in it. So if you read the Australian or smh online, they don't want to know apparently.

PS: Sorry Graham, but I won't pay for OLO. I will however fill out countless surveys.

How many on-line blogs are there? OLO is pretty good and if Graham sees fit to find out the demographics of "us" in order to better target advertising then that's fine with me. I can't say I respond to such advertising but then I am case hardened resistant ANY advertising.

antiseptic that has to be the ugliest web site I've ever seen. You have misused the word 'design'. It reminds me of Geocities crap.

Houellebecq:"that has to be the ugliest web site I've ever seen"

The site has just passed 50,000 registered users, of whom many hundreds are active at any time, as well as the lurkers. It covers an enormous variety of subjects and has more sub-forums than i've ever seen anywhere. It allows users to upload photos, exchange personal messages and doesn't limit the size of posts in any way other than by restricting the maximum photo file size for individual photos. As for "ugly", it allows you to select from several "skins", one of which might suit you better.

I've never seen the site down except for periodic upgrades in over 5 years of visiting it.

I believe it is now very close to cost-neutral for Neil because of the advertising he started carrying about 2 years ago, none of which interferes with te user's experience in any way.

It's as close to state of the art as I've seen and it's all done with off-the-shelf software.