Gday Graham,
I would like to suggest a survey to glean feedback and ideas.

For me, while I like the articles, some of the posters have become so uncontrolably nasty and personal that I rarely visit these days.

I like a robust debate but detest the way that discussion can be stymied by obnoxious bullies. I would like to suggest that a set of house rules are put forward and adhered to.

At one stage I did consider contributing an article for possible inclusion but the unbridled nastiness by some posters, particulary on topics on Indigenous Australians, has made me reconsider.

I do note that recently there has been a bit of oversight but am not sure it is enough to entice me back as a regular reader, poster, or as a possible contributor.

While OLO is a good format and offers a range of topics I hate the way that some people have bullied out others

Good luck Susan P in whatever comes next, you will be a great loss to OLO.

The idea of a yearly subscription with a free trial for a set period (maybe six weeks) for new users to get the feel of OLO similar to the Crikey site, might be worth considering. There could also be a discounted subscription for pensionsers, students and other card holders, so as to keep OLO as open to a wide variety of participants as possible.

OLO is a great site with an array of viewpoints enhanced by an eclectic bunch of writers and particpants. OLO articles are often distributed around for information in a number of high profile departments with much discussion albeit informally. It is one of a number of growing opportunities for people to discuss ideas on an open forum and that is a real plus in a democracy where often the citizens feel disenfranchised from the executive arm of government.

Hi Graham

If you could supply a Post Office Box I would be grateful in order to donate, particularly given that I do not have a credit card and will be using a Money Order.

All year I have wanted to donate [on my mind] especially considering the amount of interaction OLO has allowed me since joining [just reading other peoples' stories and comments is fantastic for starters]!!

Thank you Susan, Graham and all Staff for a wonderful Forum.

Kindest wishes.

For a quick cashflow input, why not look at your list of contributors - if we were all asked to put in $5 per article published, on a one-off basis, my calculations are that this would be a considerable sum of money. I'm not sure how this would work with republished material, but most of the articles on OLO are originals. There would be a strong incentive to respond positively to such a request, because we would all like to be published again. If it were a one-off deal, that would stop the messiness associated with forking $5 at the time of future article publication. It would not prevent you from making a similar request say in another five years down the track. I think this strategy would be superior to, and more productive than, a general appeal for support. Such appeals are very common, and very ignorable.

OLO must flourish- there are too few decent forums in Australia.

Graham- the donation site crashed so I will make a direct debit.

Suggestions:I would promote OLO more vigorously if some of the bloggers were better behaved. Some of the threads become downright embarrassing. Robust debate is one thing- insult and innuendo just subvert the site- yes- subvert. It's a growing strategy of the anti-democrats to sully the general environment around the beacons of reason to discourage the second row of supporters. I guess that many of the OLO-slaggers just think that they are acting on their own impulses and exercising free speech, but if they care to look around and reflect for a moment, they would see that they are being used as pawns.

We need INFORMED opinion so that our collective intelligence is greater than the sum of the individuals. The "information" does not need to be scholarly- many people have valuable personal experiences that can add to a discussion. We need to encourage that.

We also need to encourage authors to have a "second iteration"- based on the input from the discussion thread- if the opinions are worth anything, then the author will incorporate them in his/her revision. One of the problems with most blog sites is that there is no effective summation, response or cumulation of the contributed wisdom. The New York Times is an exception. It does not have to presume to be definitive. Maybe if the author can't do it, then volunteers could. My cyber-hand is up for that one.

I think that these suggestions would help differentiate OLO from the echo chamber of blogsites and help its economics as well.

OLO is a most admirable site, and unique in the editors' willingness to publish topics across the board.

Susan Prior is an exceptional talent, and as a contributor, I will miss her greatly. She is firm, and unfailingly polite and generous, and though I've never met you, Susan, I quickly developed trust in your editorial judgement.

If OLO is in need of editorial input, I can offer some time, and considerable experience.

Thanks for this journal - it is a gem.

Jennifer Wilson.