Forrest may well be in a mood favourable to an approach as to OLO site sponsorship.

Andrew Forrest, that is.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/asic-wins-appeal-over-andrew-forrest-of-fortescue-metals-group/story-e6frg9df-1226008271494?from=public_rss

Whilst in no way do I seek to comment upon the court decision mentioned in the news item, I can obtain a sense of a latent injustice being done to Andrew Forrest as a result of that decision, from this paragraph of the item:

"The news won’t significantly affect the company,
which reported a sharp rise in half-year profits
today, but unless he chooses to appeal to the High
Court, it will see him removed from decision-making
at Fortescue Metals Group, the company he planned
and turned into a $21 billion operation."

To me it seems not impossible that the prospect of his removal from decision-making might be considered extremely fortuitous by some foreign interests. If the seat of my pants is giving me correct information in this respect, it is only if vehicles for free speech and informed public comment continue to exist that such possible injustices can be ventilated.

It is interesting to note the remark of Keane J., in raising questions over ASIC's pursuit of the case, reported in this news item: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/court-rules-andrew-forrest-misled-fortescue-investors/story-fn59niix-1226008434394?from=public_rss

"It is a curiosity of the case that
there was no evidence that any member
of the investing public was misled by,
or suffered loss as a result of,
FMG's contraventions of the Act"

Regulatory and/or competitor noses out of joint?




In Australia, OLO and blogs of the like associated with 'The Domain' advertising package are at the bleeding edge of the maintenance of a free press, and are perhaps the best prospect for holding governments to proper accountability in such matters. Jennifer Marohasy's OLO article 'Snowy Hydro derivatives play submerges farmers', http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11633 , ventilating that scandal, is a case in point.

Andrew Forrest, and his FMG Chairman Herb Elliot, may well see the value in helping sustain such vehicles very clearly at the moment.

Worth a call?

The following quote is the entirety of the post by GrahamY, on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 at 5:21:04 AM, (the day before the Muehlenberg article was published) to the General Discussion topic 'Moderation, Flaming, Off-Topic, Rules' which I earlier quoted from and to which I supplied a link, which link I now repost. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4109#102919

"Hi, just thought I would drop a couple
of tidbits of information into this thread
that might be of interest.

First thing is that we are audited by
AC Nielsen as part of the advertising
arrangements on the site and as a result
we get weekly reports on our readership
numbers. Last week, for the first time
ever, the forum (which includes all
comments on the bottom of articles) had
more page views than the journal articles
themselves.

Part of that may of course be due to some
of the intense discussions going on here,
but perhaps part of it is due to the
commenters having become more civil and
spending more time discussing articles
rather than dissing each other.

Second is that I had an author (not one
who has been party to any of these thread
discussions) send me an email saying how
they noticed that the quality of comments
had got better, as judged by the comments
on their article.

We've published 7 articles this morning
because there was just so much choice. I
think you will find authors are much more
willing to send us pieces if they feel like
they are getting some respect.

I think the same will be true of people who
read the comment threads and who think about
commenting."

There had, as of late November 2010, and before the Muehlenberg article was published, already been a tightening up on moderation on OLO upon which a number of users had commented favourably, with results as described in GrahamY's quoted post.

Given that the number of unique views of the site can be determined, I am wondering whether it may not be possible to introduce free, but limited, moderated unregistered guest posting to OLO?

TBC

Continued

I lurked on OLO for quite a while before first registering as a user. If my own reaction with respect to commenting on other sites is any guide as to how most viewers react, it would be that the bulk of potential commenters, who would otherwise spontaneously comment upon reading an article or post, will be put off by the requirement to give up information to complete the registration process and never participate.

I note that some online news sites have a comment pane for guest comments that requires no registration. The thing is that all such comments made are subject to moderation BEFORE they are posted. Such moderation is clearly beyond the present resources of OLO. However, if I am not mistaken, GrahamY himself floated the idea of volunteer moderators drawn from among the regular users of the site, as a means of lightening the moderation workload. (The consensus appeared to be, at the time, that a clear majority of regular users were quite happy with the way moderation was already being done.)

There may nevertheless be an opportunity for OLO to both increase its number of registered users, and effectively encourage voluntary subscription membership (usership?) via the introduction of unregistered moderated guest, or viewer, posting.

The idea is that guest posting would be free, but for a limited number of posts over some specified period and rate of posting, and subject of course to any delays in moderation and with no guarantees given. Such guests, if desiring (or getting sucked into the need) to post more frequently/widely on the site, could then secure that right by becoming a subscription user.

Volunteer regular OLO users could be given a guide to moderation of guest posts, teleworking access to an OLO journal of guest posts awaiting moderation before posting, and site authorization to approve posting. On the job training of moderators at little or no cost, with the existing user-complaint system still in place as back-up when posts do go up.

Ten guests converting to subscription users @ $2each/wk generates around $52,000 pa., ongoing.

Graham I have not read all posts. Why not sell coupons, say 10c / comment. You buy so manny dollars worth, then they get depleted at 10c / comment. Top up on line.

just thought it worth repeating this quote
from the bear

...''I'm gonna repeat this comment you posted on my blog, because I think it says everything about your intentions right from the start.

I asked Mikey Bear had they thought about the anti discrimination path, ...instead of a financial attack*.. on OLO
as their first course of action.

He wrote:

*Why must they go to via an anti-discrimination path? That’s ludicrous. A letter to the advertisers proved far simpler, effective and expedient.*

and there you have it.''...

yes there we have it..

seems suing* people
might better be a way of assuring income

as the theme ..appears to be clearly ..kick em in the purse

As at around 8:30 AM AEDST today, GrahamY's article 'Wanted: new financial backers' was again standing in third position on the 'Today's most popular' display on the OLO main page.

The article had dropped off that particular display by Tuesday 15 February 2011, after having topped the display on Tuesday 8 February, the day after publication, and remained on the display continuously up until Monday 14 February. It is interesting to see the article attracting continued views, given its importance.

These twitpics of screenshots confirm the displays at the respective dates given:

http://twitpic.com/4208pg
http://twitpic.com/420a0e
http://twitpic.com/420b08

I estimate that there are around 6,000 userIDs listed in the OLO users display. If as many as 1,000 of these could be contacted by email and persuaded to contribute at the rate of $1 per week/make a $50 donation, a revenue stream of around $50,000 pa would result. That might mean the site could do without advertising altogether, which might enhance the user/viewer experience. Could this be a source of new financial backers in a targeted email campaign?

That would leave OLO in a position from which it could not be stood over with respect to advertising placement as the price of survival. Indeed OLO might be independently able to market its advertising space to selected advertisers, ones whose advertising would not detract from the user experience, directly.

FWIW, I have never used my ANZ Visa card 'rewards' before. I now have. That card use reward scheme has now funded the basic donation of $50 that Graham has stated somewhere in a relevant link or post is the target ceiling donation requested on a voluntary basis for site usage. ANZ has begun to pay for its destructive little masquerade.