The post by OLO contributor Jonathan J. Ariel on Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 6:49:01 PM to this thread opens up an interesting possibility as to the next iteration of OLO.

Jonathan, speaking with respect to voluntary contributions, said:

"While say a voluntary $2/mth or $3/mth seems reasonable
and a light burden on readers, one has to wonder just how
many will indeed pay that small amount (especially if other
media players in this space do not charge) and if not enough
readers pony up subscriptions, then not only will revenue
targets be missed, but the subscribers will in time, ferment
contempt for the free riders."




In the event that Forum software may be changed or modified such as to permit the moderated posting of 'sticky' threads, might there be some advantage to running a sticky on the subject of voluntary contribution? It may be that such an ongoing discussion would give not only a better insight into what users may off-the-bat say they are prepared to voluntarily contribute, but also operate as a think-tank with respect to services which OLO may be in a position to sell and be a motivational discussion to boot.

Good ideas do not necessarily get thrown up during the relatively short lives of topical discussions, like this very one. Running a sticky thread could provide a forum within which this subject could be kept alive and productive.

Jonathan prudently raises the prospect of paying subscribers, albethey voluntary ones, developing contempt for free riders. I wonder what might be the effect upon participation, however, if OLO gained a reputation as a forum most of its users voluntarily paid to support, especially if such voluntary support is not generally the case elsewhere?




OLO userID 'qanda', in suggesting the sale of CDs of users' comment histories as a source of revenue for OLO, brings to mind a suggestion once made by lately absent OLO userID 'Bronwyn', that such may constitute a literary legacy upon a poster's demise. I hope Bronwyn has not become a client for her own proposal.

Hi, I've been meaning to get back into this thread, but I've been ill over the last two weeks and it has slowed me down. I'll have to check out flattr.

In reply to Q&A the copyright is OLO's

"Copyright and intellectual property notices
International copyright protection
The material on this web site is protected by copyright under the laws of Australia and, through international treaties, other countries.

We own or control, and reserve, all rights
Unless otherwise indicated, all rights (including copyright) in the content and compilation of these web pages and on-line images (including text, graphics, logos, button icons, video images, audio clips and software) are owned or controlled for these purposes, and are reserved, by us.

Copyright in articles on On Line Opinion is also governed by our Contributors Agreement."

Found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

I'm going back to bed, but hopefully will be online again later! :(

Thanks for that Graham. Maybe you should write a book - there might be a buck in that :) Hope you are feeling better.

Sometimes, I suspect, it can be the smallest of things that can deter visitors to a website from participating further.

One such may be constituted by the absence of any facility on OLO for the lodgment of truly spontaneous comment, comment perhaps by what may even be a first time viewer of the site. I note the existence of such facility for unregistered (moderated) comment on, for example, some (but, very significantly, not all) news items published by the online edition of 'The Australian'.

I should imagine that OLO needs to attract more participants into discussions as a first step to widening any support base, no matter what model for ongoing financing may be adopted.

Could it be that the moderation of UNregistered viewer comments might be a suitable first area for the deployment of prospective volunteer teleworking OLO moderators?

Am I imagining things or is OLO a much quieter place of late?
There seems to have been an exodus of some of the most prolific and popular scribblers: Examinator, Foxy, CJ Williams, Severin, Pynchme(?), even Col Rouge/Stern (life's not the same without him :-( ).
This is surely a worrying trend? Extra disturbing for me since these mostly constitute the left/centre-left of what tends to be a conservative medium.
Perhaps you're right, Forrest Gumpp, OLO needs enticements!
Perhaps new comers could be offered 10% more verbiage for the first month?

Squeers, I think that perhaps those posters have not liked being held to account for overstepping the rules. I also suspect that they don't like having to rationally justify their views as we are all required to do here.

Certainly Foxy managed to produce some interesting stuff, but she always ran away when pressed as did Morgan, Severin, et al, usually leaving some kind of snarky abuse as a parthian shot. I don't miss that and I don't think it informs any kind of debate.

It's a fact that most people are somewhat left-wing in their youth and grow to enbrace a more rightist view as their own capacities increase and their confidence in their ability to take care of themselves grows. Perhaps the problem is that we simnply don't have enough younger contributors?