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