 | | Meta Question —Richard Franks
|
| | | I haven't been around in a while, but I remember Lugnet being a bit more.. well.. alive. The wiki page doesn't illuminate much, and catching up on four years worth of posts doesn't seem terribly feasible. So I was wondering really, what happened? (...) (17 years ago, 14-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Meta Question —Adrian Egli
|
| | | | | (...) A good question! For certain, RTL did not make a comeback. The theory I've heard is the growth of theme group sites like Classic Space outside of Lugnet have drawn readers away from Lugnet. I've also heard people express the opinion that (...) (17 years ago, 14-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Meta Question —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adrian Egli wrote: A good question! For certain, RTL did not make a comeback. The theory I've heard is the growth of theme group sites like Classic Space outside of Lugnet have drawn readers away from Lugnet. I always (...) (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta Question —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) --snip-- (...) I'm not exactly sure that anyone has attempted to start a new site 'to make a few bucks'. I have my doubts that anyone even could. I believe the first offshoot sites were started due to disagreements about the running and format (...) (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta Question —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | (...) That seems to be the consensus. But I don't see any Rock Raiders offshoot sites, which from my external perspective makes it look less about format, and more about cherry-picking... BICBVW! (...) Well, I don't think it's that hard considering (...) (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta Question —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) And there I was thinking it might only be for themes lots of people were interested in. (...) Well (URL) MOCpages> breaks even but (URL) CSF> has, until quite recently been run purely out of pocket. I realise that research is a bit slower than (...) (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta Question —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed - it also makes good business sense. What is your basis for assuming the former possibility and disregarding the latter? (...) I was responding to "I have my doubts that anyone even could [turn a profit]" - by sourcing all my figures (...) (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Meta Question —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I think the problem was that LUGNET didn't respond enough to people's desires. The administration was either inactive or unable to comply, thanks to various reasons. Essentially, LUGNET's software was all custom made to follow an NNTP design (...) (17 years ago, 14-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Meta Question —Richard Franks
|
| | | | Thanks for the detailed recap! (...) I agree (although that's probably a bit off-topic for off-topic.debate) - I have quite an irrational fondness for this little corner of the internet. Richard (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
