Well, lets not beat a dead horse, so I will pick out anything that I am perplexed about or could answer back for you.
Montana Matt wrote:Dow Williams wrote:are your responsible for fixing it?
No, not really, but I want to.
Who is responsible for fixing the site if you, as minority owner, are not? I find that a bit alarming. Thanks for the heads up.
Montana Matt wrote:Dow Williams wrote:are you capable of fixing it?
Yes, given enough time I believe I can fix it. But time is money and I need to spend my time making money paying my bills first and foremost.
So we are clear, I would believe it quite fool hardy of you to maintain this site for free. If you paid $$$ for your minority stake or were given it in exchange for maintaining the site, then it is not free of course. You could get paid for this kind of Internet maintenance work if you are good at and want to get paid. Like tomorrow. We do have paid advertisers paying for the opportunity to sell products to folks perusing the the contributors beta on summitpost. All the contributors ask in return is that issues be fixed in a timely manner, not overnight, just not six months either.
Dow Williams wrote:These are not offensive questions for my generation
Montana Matt wrote:Nor for mine (being born 13 years apart puts us in a different generation? I thought we were both
Gen X?). I was not offended by any of those 4 questions and I don't think it's a generational thing here Dow. I think many people would feel the same about how you communicated in this thread if they were on the receiving end of it. It was your text like the following that I didn't understand the necessity of:
Dow Williams wrote:Keep it up Matt, you are doing a terrific job. Since you feel I complain too much, I will try to not post again in site feedback for another couple of years. Sorry to bother you.
The baby boomer generation includes years 1946-1964. You seem to attempt to imply I might have ulterior motives. I believe you might struggle to find one. Hard to find someone who puts more time into the site than I do, including yourself. Obviously I would like it to succeed.
But currently it is not. It is floundering. We have lost valuable members who have lost interest due to the lack of innovation and maintenance at the site. We are now losing users because the site is to slow. I get feedback when it is good, but of course I get it when it is bad as well.
The sarcasm comment which offended you was in direct response to you implying immediately that you had no idea why I needed to start a new thread regarding the sites performance. You appear bothered by the "necessity" of a thread started by me, a serious climbing contributor who has spent almost zero time in the forums discussing such matters. I haev laid off all this time, showed incredible patience. Your comment deserved much more sarcasm then I let fly in my opinion.
Dow Williams wrote:There are plenty of folks to pat you on the back and tell you what a great job you are doing, but at the current performance of this site, that would be disingenuous bs, and I believe you know better.
Montana Matt wrote:I'm not doing this looking for a pat on the back. But I'm also not doing this to be talked to as if I'm a
peon.
Well the disingenuous pats will be forth coming as I predicted whether you care for them or not, just the nature of this site. But as I also said, I know you know better. I consider you a more sincere individual than some of these Internet personalities. I do not consider you a peon nor did I imply such. But I damn well need to know if this is the total of the effort that is going into SP, chat rooms, games, etc, while it cost me more time to contribute each passing day. Like I said before, I imagine my time investment actually rivals yours.