| |
In lugnet.general, Clark Stephens wrote:
> > That's assuming that money is the problem. <snip>
> > and Kevin certainly hasn't said so.
> > In fact, he's said very little of anything at all,
>
> Umm, excuse me? To quote from here:
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/
>
> "Due to the loss of our major sponsor,..."
>
> Exactly what English definition of sponsor are you using?
Let's fill in the rest, shall we?
"Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
longer available at Brickshelf.com."
That says absolutely nothing about the (IMHO) more important issue of user
pictures on Brickshelf, which I consider its primary purpose. The instructions
and catalog scans are available elsewhere, and could pretty easily be re-hosted
someplace new if necessary.
The crisis at hand is whether Brickshelf itself is going away, or is going to be
frozen (not accepting new uploads), as Kevin said might be the case. And
despite numerous calls here in the last week along the lines of "Let's have a
funding drive," Kevin has utterly failed to say anything like "Yes, that would
help, thank you very much."
If money were the primary problem (with keeping Brickshelf alive for
user-contributed content), I'd think he would have spoken up by now.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> "Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
> longer available at Brickshelf.com."
>
> That says absolutely nothing about the (IMHO) more important issue of user
> pictures on Brickshelf, which I consider its primary purpose. The
> instructions and catalog scans are available elsewhere, and could pretty
> easily be re-hosted someplace new if necessary.
>
> The crisis at hand is whether Brickshelf itself is going away, or is going
> to be frozen (not accepting new uploads), as Kevin said might be the case.
> And despite numerous calls here in the last week along the lines of "Let's
> have a funding drive," Kevin has utterly failed to say anything like "Yes,
> that would help, thank you very much."
>
> If money were the primary problem (with keeping Brickshelf alive for
> user-contributed content), I'd think he would have spoken up by now.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
He has:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/brickshelf/?n=125
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=46097
"While I don’t think fundrasing drives are a viable long-term option (we need
somewhat reliable monthly cashflow), we certainly will not turn away impromptu
sponsors!"
Clark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Clark Stephens wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> > If money were the primary problem (with keeping Brickshelf alive for
> > user-contributed content), I'd think he would have spoken up by now.
> >
> > Best,
> > - Joe
>
> He has:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/announce/brickshelf/?n=125
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=46097
>
> "While I don’t think fundrasing drives are a viable long-term option (we need
> somewhat reliable monthly cashflow), we certainly will not turn away impromptu
> sponsors!"
>
> Clark
Both of those are passive requests. In the same vein, I'm always interested in
getting free money, but that isn't the same like saying 'I'm broke and need to
get some cash. I'm going to sell my Collection to make money.' I think what Joe
is looking for is for Brickshelf and Kevin to explicitly state that they need
help to raise the money and provide BrickShelf with regular income.
Right now I can buy a Brickshelf membership, but the only benefit is that I
don't have to look at ads while browsing if I am signed in. I must sign in
every time I visit Brickshelf, rather than saving my signed-in status like most
sites do these days. Also, membership must be renewed in January. Right now, I
could pay $20 for a yearly membership, and only get 6 months of service.
Not that I don't think Brickshelf is a worthy cause as-is, but if benefits
aren't more substantial, it will remain a pure charity case.
-Lenny
|
|
|
