In every situation there are “Strengths, Weaknesses, and Other Threats” (SWOT for short). In business and sales this SWOT analysis is performed in some form or another (or should be) performed for every major decision. This technique requires dispassionate (or rational) analysis. This same methodology could/should be performed in our private lives at least in a truncated form. Yet we tend to think and tragically act emotionally often to our detriment (and almost as often regarding our finances). Take that 90cm flat HD TV with all the bells and whistles. Sure we want it (apart from perhaps me), who wouldn’t? The problem comes about when that want becomes a need. This is usually done by surreptitious conditioning by people who have a selfish motive… ads…by appealing to the public’s emotional vulnerability.
As a crisis councillor I have been into houses where families are eating poor nutritional food watching a new big TV but can’t pay their utilities. It is more than priorities many of these people are for a myriad of reasons unable or haven’t been taught HOW to make rational (beneficial) decisions. They learn from a source that hasn’t got their welfare at heart….the media, it has its own agenda.

It isn’t my intention to pick on advertising or the media but to indicate that people are used/manipulated for someone else’s interests, which may not be in your’s or the wider public’s interests.

What has this got to a SWOT analysis of OLO? Simply this.
One of the weaknesses of sites like OLO is that some authors/posters are in my opinion miss using the site. They come with a fixed position armed only with sometimes dubious ‘links to support their position. When the flaws are challenged they tend to become ad hominem taking the criticism as though to doubt is some how tantamount a personal criticism. Another popular tactic is the Joh 3 step tango.
If you don’t like the question then ….ignore it …ridicule it then… rephrase the question to whereby it supports there argument.
What would your SWOT analysis look like? I’ll comment later.

EXAMMY.. you need a swat :) *SWAT!*

It's

S trengths
W eaknesses
O pportunities
T threats ....

for OLO.. the main weakness is not being able to post images I reckon.
The strength is the format.. seems much better than other forums I see around.
Opportunites? aaaah I think it would be in a greater integration of OLO to mainstream newsgathering. Without becoming a newspaper..

Then..this might also be a weakness and defeat the primary purpose of interaction.

Over all it does a good job.

Strengths,a good spread of opinion [and yes knowledge], ease of posting , ans a receptive moderator ,[he is the only one ever to inform me of suspension UP front]

Weaknesses, ok the word limit[the reason for my first suspension]
also run up against the 5 post limit a few times ,the other weakness would be email noticing of response [i used to get the notices [but my mail box filled up too fast ,and often the responses wasnt in relation to my posting , or off topic or other reasons for non intrest

and Other Threats ,writing personal opinion into a permanant record ,allows others to create a prophile on you [or gang up with other posters to get your opinion silenced

[i feel if were are brave enough to write it it at least deserves a rebuttal or response [according as the poster deserves by the results his/her words solicite

there is a lack of clarity in the indexes ,and the polling seems a bit out of daTE ,heck its easy to critisise but there is more good than bad at olo

ok the 10 posts or 5 is confusing
and the 4 or 2 limit [but i will blame vista for that ]

it is partly because of grahams fairness i feel confident enough to reply [often sites dont want to hear the truth]

Dear examinator,

Strengths of Online Opinion are as follows:
1) Anyone can join.
2) Posters are free to nominate discussions.
3) Editors and Administrators don't usually interfere.
4) All sides of the topic are presented.
6) It's fun.
7) It's educational.

Weaknesses of OLO are as follows:
1) Constant allowance of same theme discussions.
e.g. politics and religion.
2) Allowance of personal attacks and labelling - lowers
the bar of discussions.
3) Limits to the number of times a person can post.
This should be extended. Often waiting many hours
to respond -takes away the spontanuity of a reaction, and
the train of thought is lost.

Opportunities for OLO are as follows:
1) Update the software to set a limit on certain subjects
that have been done to death so that when a suggestion is
put in for a discussion it automatically is rejected.
2) Bad language should be deleted.

Threats for OLO are as follows:
1)OLO could become boring and lose some patronage
if the same old subjects keep appearing so regularly.
2) Preaching and Bible quotes are not appropriate on
a Forum such as this one and should at least be limited.
The biggest threat I feel is that the Forum is misused
by some people for their own agendas. This is a definite
threat and turn off.

That's it for now, oh wise one...

Keep up the good work.

That’s a pretty good wrap Foxy.

I’ll just add one more weakness:

A lack of feedback to those who offer suggestions for the advancement of OLO.

On the ‘suggestions for OLO’ thread from July this year (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1954), which ran to 148 posts, I posted 37 times with ideas for the improvement of OLO and responses to other posters’ ideas. Neither Graham nor Susan nor anyone else from the OLO staff entered the discussion. I found that to be very disappointing indeed.

Examinator, this has is an excellent thread ... let's see how it develops. I agree with much of what you are saying and am interested in how it plays out.

PolyBoaz, now we're talking in sync - (hint: sometimes it is better to leave the big 'G' out of the equation - S/he gave us a brain).

One-under-god, I agree with everything you say. Question; who owns copyright?

Foxy, your understanding of views are always important to me ... thanks.

Ludwig, sometimes it's better that the big 'G' (GrahamY) stays out of it - but other times, yeah ... you're on the button!

You might be right Q&A, but it would have been good to have just got a one-line post from Graham saying that he is reading the suggestions but will stay out of the discussion. That would have meant a great deal.

Yep :-(

Ouch! You're right Polycarp ...brain snap, premature senior’s moment? … Ok dumb ...30 years of doing/teaching it and I blew it. I’ll go and stand in the corner :-(

Dear Foxy
I note with interest the following in your post:

2) Preaching and Bible quotes are not appropriate on
a Forum such as this one and should at least be limited.
The biggest threat I feel is that the Forum is misused
by some people for their own agendas. This is a definite
threat and turn off.

Now someone ELSE needs a SWAT :)

I'm sorry, but Biblical quotes are part of the fullness of life... part of the world we live in. That part of your post comes dangerously close to religious censorship. Or..discrimination based on religious orientation..which is illegal. (Equal Opportunity Act)

Secondly.. u don't realllly think that only 1 or 2 of us have an 'agenda' do you?

Sometimes the agenda is to mock or attack others posts... or attack the poster personally. For some it seems a serious goal in life to gradually try to build up a negative picture of people for reasons known only to themselves.

When I see some of the posts attacking me, I realize how much research needed to be done to achieve..and the time taken.
I see this as a bit of a complement as it means some people take my posts seriously enough to regard them as needing to be attacked.

News Quotes inappropriate?
Plays by certain playwrites innappropriate?
Mein Kampf innappropriate? (when used to discuss ideas)
Communist Manifesto innappropriate?

I'd re-think that one a bit.

Dear Q&A I don't quote from the Bible ALLLLL the time :) If a new thread I've done get's up..have a peek its about a news story from this morning and 'naming children'..... "Cruel Joke or cultural Misunderstanding"

There are only a few on OLO with an agenda other than pure debating and offering of opinion. The continual quoting of biblical passages in an environment such as OLO on threads that have nothing to do with religion,is just bad manners. It is true that Polycarp probably gets most of the flack on OLO but he continues to repeat the same behaviours that incite this reaction, despite knowing the inevitable outcome. Perhaps an interesting psychological study if nothing else.

But life constantly shows us you cannot change other people's behaviour we can only be responsible for our own.

There is not much to criticise on OLO - other than perhaps a way of quoting to ensure there is no misrepresentation.

In relation to the biblical quotation urges of some, I would tend to err on the side of caution with censorship and just put up with the bible bashing in the interests of free speech.

We can always get by on the hope that, in time, some might temper these urges with some self-moderation and temperance.

Ludwig, we were watching the discussion, but as On Line Opinion only makes enough money to pay bare minimum staff, we've been flat-out doing other projects to pay the bills. I'd love someone to work out how we can monetise the site better so I could spend more time on it.

What Foxy said, and what Polycarp didn't.

re monetising olo
clearly your only income from the olo site comes from adverts
[im presuming for every thousand 'clicks' olo gets a few cents]

so currently we see only two advert's
the feeling comes to mind include another advert
[or make every third post to be divided by an advert]

im just putting it out there

of course we could pay to post [or have to subscribe ] but that wouldnt work for me [i dont own credit cards ,refuse to spend money i dont got]

ok now on the religion censure

those taking upset on religios posting need to realise free speach means you have to accept
we all got that right to have our opinion on line

im not advocating banning athiests or racists [or right wingers selling us their spin]
[why should they want my love of good[god] censored]
or others freedom of religion

[or the right of the left to be highjacked]

[freedom of belief is a constituted freedom]
[read sect 116 of the fed con]

we must be able to accept contrary positions
[or there isnt free debate ] only aUTHERISED SPIN

[darn caps lock]

i feel the number of pages we need to visit to read the latest post is inconveniant
[but realise its needed to pay the bills]
its either that or we ..

well who knows

Folks,
The problem I see is more in the PRESENTATION of views.
This was never question was never intended to push personal agendas.
There is a clear difference between a discussion (emphasis on the word discussion) rather than proselytizing or gathering converts (axe grinding).

Presumably we would all like OLO to grow and prosper more readers& posters more ideas. If this site is dominated by particular personal “axe grinding” of any PERSISTENT or OVERT (P&O) types will render OLO less attractive to “website orphans and other interesting people”.

(Posts base solely on self referential biblical logic/texts are simply proselytising not discussions in the context of a general issues discussion site.
All topics can be discussed without crossing the line between discussion and “now hear this dogma”.
This site in practice is and should remain a secular one favouring neither side nor is it anti.)

Domination/P&O Will result in less hits polarized discussions and only reduce the pool of potential ‘advertisers’ that will want to be associated with OLO. That's not good for all of us

Graham, you’ve commented here on a thread that was 18 hours old when you posted….and I thank you for it. But there was nothing on ‘Suggestions for OLO’, which ran for about nine weeks!

A similar number of words posted there would have been great. That would have taken a minute fraction of the time that it would have taken to in any way monitor the thread.

The number of actual threads about OLO that have begged for a bit of a response from OLO personnel has been very small indeed.

I just feel that those who doing what amounts to an extra service for OLO, in spending a lot of time thinking about how it could be improved…while at the same time not being critical, or perhaps being lightly constructively critical sometimes…but also being obvious strong supporters by being regular contributors over a long period….deserve a bit more than a null response from the establishment.

It’s about feeling as though you are a good contributor… and a valued member of the OLO family.

Aah, I must admit, I’ve become very sensitised to this sort of thing in my workplace, where I’ve been resoundedly thumped by my establishment for doing exactly what our code of conduct implores us to do…work towards improving things that you feel need improvement, in a proper and professional manner.

I have no idea of what other demands you might have on your time Graham (Not sure what you mean by ‘monetise’. My online dictionary gave the old null response). But I accept what you’ve said about paying the bills.

At least no one at OLO came back and told Ludwig to get knotted over any of his suggestions! Cheers.

Graham

I don't believe anyone is entitled to a free ride. If one provides a service, then that service-provider is entitled to some recompense.

Though I note that you do call for donations from users on OLO, I would hardly describe your method as "marketing savvy."

I'm sure posters would not be discouraged from participating if you raised a thread six monthly or annually, to remind posters that their monetary contribution to the running expenses for OLO, would be appreciated.

I'm confident this proposed strategy would attract more attention plus more contributions. Worth a try?

Whaddya think?

Thanks for the suggestion Dickie. We do put ads in the newsletters from time to time, but they haven't worked. Perhaps for say a week sometime we could run one of those ads that interrupts you before you can view an article.

I notice a few of you raising the issue of the limitation on posts. We brought that in very early on because the conversation went feral, and tended to be dominated by the same few. Perhaps now we have a more established community it could be relaxed to see how it went. But I'd hate to see it degenerate again as it did previously.

The strengths of OLO is everyone is allowed an opinion (unlike our national broadcasters). Foxy is wrong in condemning the use of Scripture. The vast majority of articles in OLO come from a secular or biblical world view. Anyone not noticing the clash is blind. Almost every article in some way or another whether it is environmental, politics or religion is written from a philosophical viewpoint. Banning the biblical viewpoint would be the same as only allowing our one eyed national broadcasters to transmit at night. It would no longer be on line opinion but humanist propaganda going by without check like it does in many of our State schools.

As for the payment, I would be happy to contribute to a moderate six monthly fee.

I’m inclined to agree runner.

What gets on my goat though is when regular posters just ignore your requests for them to respond to a particular point of debate, when it is in line with the thread topic.

I can handle the fly-by-nighters who post a single simplistic comment and then fail to follow it up when requested to do so, but when regular passionate posters do it, it really grates.

My latest beef of this sort if with you runner and with Polycarp http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8121#126923

Graham the advice given by dickie is good advice, some will complain but that is life.
Raising money is never easy I have to do it very often at work for sick or injured workers, the best reasons but like pulling teeth.
Run an in your face add often.
It is time for me to contribute again I intend to do so as money allows.
I do however understand some can not, so lets pretend this is a union meeting wait till I climb on the stump.
Some of us can help here, some maybe enough to pay for those who can not.
It has to be worth 2 bucks a week, who would not agree?
How about some pay half that again to help posters who can not pay.
Some of our very best are struggling on small incomes lets hit the kitty.
Those who can pay more without pain?
We are here we must like it why not help?

Dear Polycarp,

I'm not talking about censoring religious threads,
or Bible quotes.

I'm talking about setting limits, guidelines and
parameters, for all repetitive
same theme subjects. Religion was given as one example.
It happens to be the one that appears the most
often in any given week.

Having the same old stuff repeated over and over again -
tends to lose the impact that I'm sure was intended.

A set limit on topics would make things more interesting for
everyone.

But, you can swat me if you like...

Excellent idea Graham - let's do it!

Personally I am happy with the limitations though they don't prevent me from being feral - I just am. That's the nature of the beast...errr....beastess!

G can we think about this? I am about to re sign with a weather service so I can watch the weather coming.
Last time it cost me $5 a month worth every bit.
We have to consider things such as tax, yours not ours.
And even more important we must not embarrass those who can not pay.
But can we arrange a supporters fund?
Say given amounts coming out weekly from our cards same as my weather thing it is worth five bucks to me every week.
Some clearly would not be hurt by more.
Here I want to underline my thoughts.
No free rides!
If we play up we get banned just the same, we do not buy favors with our contributions we buy the right to say we support the forum nothing else.
PS
Polycarp truly I have nothing against you but sometimes your posts get skipped.
repartition proves nothing.

Examinator,

Some suggestions as part of the SWOT team:

STRENGTHS

The range of subjects that can be ventilated by user choice.

Ability of users to express their true views while concealing their true identity.

WEAKNESSES

Site traffic statistics not available to users.

The absence of a 'page page', a button on every page that will open in another tab a description of all the features of the subject OLO page, together with some tips and/or user experience in best using them.

Absence of certain elementary text options. (See recent Technical Support threads.)

Absence of private messaging feature.

Absence of a 'recurring discussions' area, to which repetitive topics could be moved. Avoids 'censorship by rejection' without degrading the character of the truly topical part of the Forum.

Inability to make even moderator-vetted posts to archived threads, particularly article comments threads.

OPPORTUNITIES

A set of enhancements could conceivably be made available for a fee to users. These enhancements could include access to site traffic statistics. It would be interesting, for example, to know how many guests, as opposed to users, are online at any time; how many views threads have had, both by guests and registered users, how many views articles have had in comparison to numbers of comments (hehe); and such like. Geographic origins of traffic may be interesting, as would numbers of email posting notifications set.

If OLO could not sell an enhancement package for the price of a sunday 'news'paper, say $2 - $4 per week to most users, I would be surprised.

I think I have seen it suggested that OLO users should be able to submit articles under their alias. There are some topics that just cannot be introduced in a thought or opinion provoking way in just 350 words. This too, could perhaps be viewed as a saleable enhancement, users paying for submission unless the article attracts a certain number of views. There could be article submission limits analogous to posting limits, if needed.

THREATS

Anything that slows down page loading, like proposed government so-called 'anti-porn' filtering.

'Argument by abuse' among users.

Olo's great strength is participation and it's range of views.

Sure there is some repetition but the sun does comes up in the same place every day and for some of society's problems it takes a lot of bindis in it's foot before it does something about cleaning the paddock up .

As funding seems to be a problem for OLO perhaps some ethical advertising in the right margin might help.

If the OLO opened at the Ist AND last page it may be an improvement, as Internet Speeds in the "bush" are generally abysmally slow.

Attention all
This isn't about banning any thing.
As I previously stated it IS ALL A MATTER OF PRESENTATION. Nothing a couple of rules couldn't fix, a new topic category “Religion and religious debate” and an attitude change i.e. keeping our eye on the prize…a fully self funded discussion site. Foxy is right bless her little cotton socks.

Fully funded so GY can have the option to implement those extra features we want. To do this GY needs to be able to ‘market’ the site to advertisers.
We can all help by giving him the information the marketing points from our perspective hence the call for SWOT (SWAT what ever).

In marketing one of the most powerful tools is the product’s Unique Selling Proposition (USP) i.e. what has or what can OLO do to have that unique property that will encourage advertisers decide that it’s worth them investing their money in advertising on this site? (USP works look at any ad eg in one beer ad it is less “Carbs”, in soap powder it is ingredient X etc)

Forrest Gump and some others have got the idea it’s not about our OLO’s unique sport of bashing up on our resident evangelists. i.e “Join OLO and bash up on an Evangelist”. Fun as it maybe sometimes, it won’t sell well to advertisers besides do we really want to go there?

Your input can be collated and analysed it may help.
Ultimately we ALL (weyawl if you’re from the sthn states of American) benefit

"A set of enhancements could conceivably be made available for a fee to users."

This, and some of the other suggestions here, would destroy what I see as one of OLO's greatest strengths, that is, its free, open and democratic nature. It's a unique forum in that it attracts people from all walks and stations in life and yet we are all on the same footing. Our comments stand and fall on their merit, not on the position of the writer or his/her ability to pay.

Any tinkering of the sort you're suggesting here, Forrest, while likely to appeal to a select few, will alter the balance of what we now have. There will be an instant division into fee-payers and non fee-payers, and while I realise it's only to access extra features and that the main forum would still be open to all, to me it's just the thin edge of the wedge and would eventually spell the end of the forum as it now operates.

I think the current system works well. I wonder if the average user has the time to access a whole lot of extra information anyway. Certainly, there are minor improvements which can be made, for example, the choice of going to the first or last page of comments, but the more that is built into the system the more expensive it becomes to operate. When funding is already an issue, I don't consider that a wise direction in which to move.

To be fair to all users, especially those on low or irregular incomes, fee-paying should remain strictly optional. Its collection should remain low key and unobtrusive, though dickie's idea of more in-your-face reminders several times a year is I think a good one.

I also like kartiya jim's suggestion for a greater emphasis on ethical advertising. This might inspire people to dig a little deeper.

I value the site and am prepared to pay for its use, but if it loses its free and democratic nature and morphs into a two-tiered profit-driven enterprise, I will lose interest very quickly.

all good[sustainable]systems include an element of barter

ok its the readers who visit the pages that give the advert return
[a 'natural' flow that is like a consumer paying for service]

but for posters to pay[unless its blatent pr] dont seem fair

i thought of rating posts with a credit system where posters share and readers[consumers] pay

so i feel post [publish ]or perish[pay]

along with your publish rights comes acces [to that you published]
our posts earn us acces [ongoing free acces ]

but money is a potentially flawed fruit

it has cost me heaps in time and acces to the net
and buy computers ,and selkf educate
to give my info away ,
then to get banned hurts big time

[but as its for TRYING to help[him who needs no human help]
he dont need us at all[it is we who need him]

but there are some who dont want to ever hear about him because to them its about self credit[or matters of man ;[flesh]

it is a shame that religion gets attacked as much as it does
[even in non religion discussions the topic arrises[so a speed fine type income may bring in money [in the short term]for off topic comment[like a swear jar]

but then who choses the topic
ok im only joking

my real beef is the constant carping about religion [or rather the right to educate the dear reader on our own opinion[on line]

just as they then get the right of reply ,and get to educate [or deprogram] ours

[like i feel private emails[or complaints to the powers that be ] should form part of the PUBLIC debate [and be allowed response by the comnplained against as much as the right to complain

we are all grown ups
[and thus able to chose to repond ;or not]
complaining to moderator would at times become childish

[especially if no attempt to noting it at post ,has been affected or attempted]

religion is like any belief OUR personal Opinion
[and this is a forum for opinion[on line]

Hi there Examinator

I'm in agreement with the suggestions in Bronwyn's excellent post.

In addition, I would be concerned if the topic of "religion" was to be categorised. After all, the evangelists on this site are not here to speak to the converted - they are here on a mission but then aren't we all?

Wouldn't categorising "religion" mean that we must then categorise "atheism," "multiculturalism" etc too?

As an atheist, I have not experienced the tedium on religious discussion to which others refer. That's because I ignore it and those who persist in relaying their convictions too - simple really. Each to their own!

I would not propose expanding the 350 word limit either. I too have experienced the frustration of having to truncate a post, however, tedium surely would arise when one must digest a post of some 500 words or so. Would this enhance robust debate?

On a trivial note, some posters refrain from paragraphing lengthy posts which creates a significant strain on the old peepers!

Cheers

"On a trivial note, some posters refrain from paragraphing lengthy posts which creates a significant strain on the old peepers!"

Dickie, thanks for endorsing my earlier comments. I agree with you, paragraphing is important and can do a lot to enhance an argument.

While long posts that aren't paragraphed are hard to read, and actually I myself haven't noticed too many of them on OLO, the opposite tendency to paragraph practically every sentence is, in my opinion, equally off-putting.

Newspapers have led the charge on this for a long time now. It's part of why I stopped writing letters to the editor. I got tired of seeing carefully considered paragraphs disassembled into single sentences.

I would hate to see this dumbing-down tendency take over at OLO, but somehow I think there are enough posters who appreciate the importance of paragraphing to prevent this from happening.

"I would not propose expanding the 350 word limit either."

I totally agree. As Romany, I think it was, pointed out earlier, the discipline of making a case in 350 words is part of the appeal of OLO. It forces us to be concise and limits the problem of people waffling on. Besides, I imagine people often choose the General comments over the Articles for the very reason that they don't have the time or the mental stamina right then to read a lengthy piece. I know I do.

The thread has been a good one thanks author, ideas have been very good dickie FG and more.
May I leap to my own defense?
Well I have improved but my education was truly self taught.
I agree very much with remarks that we should not divide the site, in fact wish I had unticked the box so my donation will not be highlighted.
My wish is no acknowledgments on the forum for other than sponsors.
free speech lets religion breath, keep it that way but allowed us who do not believe the freedom to differ.
Now for my defense of bad writing and spelling , bad composition or grammar.
Mostly it is not laziness, its the best some can do.
We would be hounded of the forum if we constantly highlighted faults because of race color or sexual preferences, even sex.
It is not well known but people of every generation mine included leave school unable to read or write.
Every new work site on my first visit I look for those people, and find them out the back if its time to sign some thing.
Or telling me they left their glasses at home so will take it home for the missus to fix up.
Print handy capped, I no longer think That is even close to me, need support quietly privately.
How about a basic tec advice page? telling posters how to down load and install a spell check?
I believe some of our very best posters have little education but contribute much
I have moderated my behavior here by avoiding conflicts by staying away from some surely we do not need much to change other than some of the improvements mentioned?
However those who can afford to help? why not? we pay for the paper and spend more time here
regards all

Hi Bronwyn. You said "This, and some of the other suggestions here, would destroy what I see as one of OLO's greatest strengths, that is, its free, open and democratic nature. It's a unique forum in that it attracts people from all walks and stations in life and yet we are all on the same footing. Our comments stand and fall on their merit, not on the position of the writer or his/her ability to pay."

That's the way it was meant to be. If Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull are published here, it's just as Kevin and Malcolm, no honourifics or acknowledgement that they are anything but equals. Same for everyone else.

So you're not likely to find the management going for charges. I might be an economic liberal, but not only do I know the price of very many things, but I understand the value of many things which are without price!

Well said GY no brown nose I always knew that would be how you thought.
That is why the forum works.
And clearly that was your intent, it worked.
Costs however still exist improvements cost just day to day things do too.
I wanted to say something a bit different in a post above , it came out different than I thought, it often does.
So here it is again, I do not think we should be publicly credited for donating, unless we ask to be.
Sponsorship? I meant those who contribute in such a way should be able to see it acknowledged if they want too.
I want no divide between those who can give and those who can not.
But shamelessly remind those that can give it is for a good reason.

GrahamY, in the 12th post, says:

"I'd love someone to work out how we can monetise the site better so I could spend more time on it."

GrahamY, in the 33rd post, says:

"Hi Bronwyn. You said "This [a set of enhancements being made available to users for a fee], and some of the other suggestions here, would destroy what I see as one of OLO's greatest strengths, that is, its free, open and democratic nature. It's a unique forum in that it attracts people from all walks and stations in life and yet we are all on the same footing. Our comments stand and fall on their merit, not on the position of the writer or his/her ability to pay."

That's the way it was meant to be. ....... ........

So you're not likely to find the management going for charges."

These appear, on the face of it, to be mutually exclusive positions.

I appreciate Bronwyn's concern. We wouldn't want wedge opinionating to get up an undemocratic head of steam, would we? That being so, how does one reconcile your desire expressed in the 12th post with the restriction you have placed upon charging for use of the site as an opinionator? From what sources, or in return for what services provided by OLO, do you see the earning of revenue not compromising the purpose(s) for which OLO was created?

Would your, and Bronwyn's, concerns be assuaged if the proposed enhancement package was made available to ALL users for a uniformly small charge? Or is it that charging users at all for anything is that which is anathema to OLO? I think the vast majority of users understand about the need for advertising revenue, but is there room on the OLO site for more of it, or can more remunerative advertising replace existing advertising?

Appropriating the political campaigning technique of Belinda Neal to attempted resolution of OLO's revenue problems, I say "tell me what to think, and I'll think it". Somewhere there's always a way.

"I might be an economic liberal, but not only do I know the price of very many things, but I understand the value of many things which are without price!"

Wonderfully spoken, Graham! And words likely to win you many fans here, I'm sure! For me, OLO looks like developing into one of those real gems - right up there with public libraries and public broadcasting - community spaces freely available to all, highly treasured by those who use them and of great value to society more broadly.

And just like the devotees of the ABC who, whenever funding's threatened, claim they'd happily return to paying licences, so too I think you'll find that OLO users will be there when they're needed and will dig deep when they can.

Dear Bronwyn,

Beautifully put.

I fully agree.

Expanding upon what may be an opportunity for better monetarising the OLO site, accepting that advertising has been necessary to fund OLO, why not set up a fee-for-access mirror site that has identical content but no advertising or surfer-tracking analytics? I should imagine that the revenue in the order of $2-$4 per week that might reasonably be expected to be derived from just one regular user of the suggested ad-free mirror site, whether as a regular guest or a registered poster, would far exceed the amount of advertising revenue that could be attributed to such user's activity on the site under the present arrangements.

At the risk of being seen to put words in Bronwyn's mouth, I think she effectively backs this general suggestion up when she says (as she did) that:

"And just like the devotees of the ABC who, whenever funding's threatened, claim they'd happily return to paying licences, so too I think you'll find that OLO users will be there when they're needed and will dig deep when they can."

What is it that makes users of the ABC so, sadly only potentially, willing to bear this cost? Freedom from advertising, if I'm not wrong.

The thing is that GrahamY is effectively saying financially supportive OLO users are needed now, if any enhancements to the site are to be made. Whilst it is true that a user may donate in support of OLO, not all (and I'm one of them) so far have. The trick is in converting such claimed willingness or mental assent to financial support into actual cash flow into OLO. If that was easy to do, it would be already happening.

Then again, I may have misunderstood both Graham, and which way it is that we are meant to be looking through the window that is OLO: from the outside looking in, or from the inside looking out. Enhanced site functionality and effective financial support from users may be seen as disadvantaging in some way existing sponsors of the OLO site.

I do not think GY meant he would not improve the site.
I saw it as a promise he would not make changes that damaged the site.
And I think he said, well I know he did, that he would like to spend more time on the forum.
He has to make a living.
Adds do not bother me, flood the place if it helps.
Tax and other things may stop it but FG you will have a far better idea than me, is there a way monthly donations could be made just like paying for service provider on this site.
For those who can afford it.
If we could I would, I understand it would not be tax deductible for us but am more concerned that the forum could be taxed.
If funds come in I am sure some of the ideas for improvements would too.
I would like to see polling for just the users in OLO
Say how do you think Rudd/Turnbull/Obama are going?
Or are you concerned about the credit crisis?

Ah Forrest, I am more than happy for you to put words into my mouth, you are a much better lateral thinker than I am!

Yes, I guess I can come close to accepting your idea of mirror sites. We would all still have access to the same material, but it would nonetheless be a division or a split into a two-tier system, and personally I feel you lose something special once that occurs. The other issue, and I have absolutely no idea on this, but I'm inclined to think the practical logistics and expense of setting up such a system would be quite prohibitive.

I still have the niggling feeling too that the majority of users might be perfectly happy with OLO as it is and not really be looking for a host of changes. Personally, I see the issue of funding to maintain the site as more important than trying to change it too radically, but I'm not sure whether or not that's a true reflection of others' opinions.