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.