What's the hangup, or what makes them more complex?

O-Trap;1212183 wrote:What's the hangup, or what makes them more complex?

With google you just place the code on the site and it's done. With the others you actually have to select which products to advertise. At least in my limited experience.

justincredible;1212222 wrote:With google you just place the code on the site and it's done. With the others you actually have to select which products to advertise. At least in my limited experience.

Honestly, I can probably build something like this pretty easily. Ad images that correspond to links, and that rotate accordingly.

I don't see how revenue for this site even comes close to $70/month. If Justin gets more than $10 a month I'd be shocked.

sleeper;1212888 wrote:I don't see how revenue for this site even comes close to $70/month. If Justin gets more than $10 a month I'd be shocked.

You'd be surprised. Most of web marketing is traffic. With enough traffic, it's just a numbers game.

O-Trap;1212904 wrote:You'd be surprised. Most of web marketing is traffic. With enough traffic, it's just a numbers game.

Pretty much explains why enforcing "trolling" is out the window. Bottom line is, trolling brings in traffic. Period.

sleeper;1212907 wrote:Pretty much explains why enforcing "trolling" is out the window. Bottom line is, trolling brings in traffic. Period.

It's not the only thing that does. People came to football games to see Terrell Owens play. Doesn't mean teams didn't get rid of him.

O-Trap;1212929 wrote:It's not the only thing that does. People came to football games to see Terrell Owens play. Doesn't mean teams didn't get rid of him.

What else would you come to this forum for? It's not going to grow, we aren't going to acquire new members; that's the reality. It's too bro centric around here, perpetuated by the mods broness which filters down to the masses who become bros. No one wants to go to a forum filled with bros. The forum initially didn't grow fast enough and we are left with a bunch of bros posting with bros.

sleeper;1212934 wrote:What else would you come to this forum for? It's not going to grow, we aren't going to acquire new members; that's the reality. It's too bro centric around here, perpetuated by the mods broness which filters down to the masses who become bros. No one wants to go to a forum filled with bros. The forum initially didn't grow fast enough and we are left with a bunch of bros posting with bros.

Actually, what will draw people to this, or any, forum is niche targeting. Those interested in connecting with people who live in, or who have some sort of vested interest in, Ohio will come.

Another effective draw will be SEM, which I know Justin is working on. Just like monetization is a traffic issue, so is membership. You're assuming everyone has your own view on this. Most forums to which I go have some sort of "clique-ish" element to them. It's nothing new or exclusive to this forum. All that matters is perceived value, and though you might not perceive much value, others may. No site owner can look at the perceived value through the perspective of an insufficient sample. The numbers tell the story. If the site is growing, then either perception of value is good or SE ranking is good. If it is shrinking, then one of those two elements is shrinking.

As far as not growing fast enough, this is one of the fastest grown forums I've seen, as it essentially had a collection of people all in one location already to whom it provided a solution: Free Huddle as opposed to $12 Huddle. Most forums with the level of SEO understanding that Justin had at the time would take at least 18 months to hit four-digit membership, because the marketing of it is mostly word-of-mouth.

In any case, lively discussion on things like religion or sports with particular emphasis (those things as they relate to Ohio) is what brings people to a site like this. If we're trying to compete in the troll department, we're doomed, as it's a pretty saturated market as far as forums are concerned. When all people want is trolls, they go to /b/ or someplace with a more well-known presence for that sort of thing.

All people want are endless discussions. No one starts discussions here. The mods sure as shit don't, ETB tries and gets thread banned. COA tries and gets thread banned. Pointless to even try to start a discussion here unless its something retarded like "Look what I wasted my money on" and "What did you eat for lunch today?". Couple that with "Would you bang said chick?" and you can see what the real problem with the site is.

I'd probably tool the moderating a bit.

I just finished serving what I believe was a unfair one-week ban for calling someone a bandwagon fan.

I was insulting him, but it didn't warrant that much of a ban

sleeper;1212986 wrote:All people want are endless discussions. No one starts discussions here. The mods sure as shit don't, ETB tries and gets thread banned. COA tries and gets thread banned. Pointless to even try to start a discussion here unless its something retarded like "Look what I wasted my money on" and "What did you eat for lunch today?". Couple that with "Would you bang said chick?" and you can see what the real problem with the site is.

Honestly, I'd say Belly's started today was a pretty good one.

Moreover, like I said, the numbers will tell the story. If the content becomes a problem, the numbers will reflect it. However, it honestly could be that if the majority of people who start topics start frivolous ones, then the majority of visitors could act in the same vein.

I understand why a person wouldn't like it, but at the end of the day, metrics tell more than opinion.

O-Trap;1212996 wrote:Honestly, I'd say Belly's started today was a pretty good one.

Moreover, like I said, the numbers will tell the story. If the content becomes a problem, the numbers will reflect it. However, it honestly could be that if the majority of people who start topics start frivolous ones, then the majority of visitors could act in the same vein.

I understand why a person wouldn't like it, but at the end of the day, metrics tell more than opinion.

And faith trumps all metrics and opinions. If you can't prove it wrong, then it must be true!

dlazz;1212995 wrote:I'd probably tool the moderating a bit.

I just finished serving what I believe was a unfair one-week ban for calling someone a bandwagon fan.

I was insulting him, but it didn't warrant that much of a ban

Welcome to the OC.

sleeper;1213005 wrote:And faith trumps all metrics and opinions. If you can't prove it wrong, then it must be true!

What are you talking about?

O-Trap;1213010 wrote:What are you talking about?

If I have faith that the forum sucks, and have no evidence that the forum sucks, and you cannot prove me wrong, then my faith is true and accurate.

sleeper;1213015 wrote:If I have faith that the forum sucks, and have no evidence that the forum sucks, and you cannot prove me wrong, then my faith is true and accurate.

I won't belittle your conclusion (the forum sucks), though I think it subjective in nature. Vilifying or discrediting a conclusion without addressing the construct behind it is a fallacy, and I'd hate to be guilty of it.

However, your construct is asinine. I don't know who you're trying to be, but it's not offending me, that reasoning is foolish, regardless of the conclusion.

I must say, I haven't heard too many people use that here.

sleeper;1213015 wrote:If I have faith that the forum sucks, and have no evidence that the forum sucks, and you cannot prove me wrong, then my faith is true and accurate.

Fuck you and your faith/religion bullshit. Isadore with his pitbull shit and you with your faith/religion/god shit - you two can go jump off a bridge into an inferno.

Raw Dawgin' it;1213024 wrote:Fuck you and your faith/religion bullshit. Isadore with his pitbull shit and you with your faith/religion/god shit - you two can go jump off a bridge into an inferno.

The world would be better off without isadore so your demand is tempting...

O-Trap;1213019 wrote:I won't belittle your conclusion (the forum sucks), though I think it subjective in nature. Vilifying or discrediting a conclusion without addressing the construct behind it is a fallacy, and I'd hate to be guilty of it.

However, your construct is asinine. I don't know who you're trying to be, but it's not offending me, that reasoning is foolish, regardless of the conclusion.

I must say, I haven't heard too many people use that here.

It's not meant to offend; its to show why faith is broken. It's EZ.

sleeper;1213046 wrote:The world would be better off without isadore so your demand is tempting...

"And he sacrificed his life so that we may live in peace."

Sounds like a certain book.

sleeper;1213049 wrote:It's not meant to offend; its to show why faith is broken. It's EZ.

Etymological fallacy followed by a strawman. You've attempted to define faith in a way that few people do in order to debunk it. Then, you debunked the less-than-accurate definition you've created. I'd lean more toward the strawman, but either way ...

However, perhaps a new topic would be better for this discussion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

[LEFT]belief that is not based on proof:[/LEFT]

Pretty sure my definition is spot on.

if you could abandon your greed, selfishness and bigotry, your humanity could still be redeemed.

sleeper;1213065 wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith



Pretty sure my definition is spot on.

Kinda cherry-picked one of the five potential definitions, when the third one would have worked a lot better.

Also, your post added to the definition considerably when you asserted that your faith "is true and accurate." Therein is the strawman.

isadore;1213084 wrote:if you could abandon your greed, selfishness and bigotry, your humanity could still be redeemed.

It's a little more than being able to abandon such things. A person has to be willing also or there's not going to be any redemption.