"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.