You said Matt was doing it for free. He isn't. That is all we know. You can try to estimate what the site is making all you want but you have no idea how accurate it may be. If you really want to know just ask Matt, but he probably will not tell you and if he does you still wouldn't know if you got the real answer.

MoapaPk 0, mrchad9 1

OK- I said whole internet, and you said a lot.

MoapaPk 1, mrchad9 1

But are you comparing A LOT to zero, or A LOT to the total number of sites on the internet? Maybe 1000s of internets sites are slower now, but there are 100000s of sites. The vast majority are not running slower today and SP is currently in the bottom 10% in terms of speed no matter how you slice it. Dow and likely other major contributors like him only want so see some real results in terms of site performance.

MoapaPk 1, mrchad9 2

Is there a way to make the chat window bigger? If someone types more than a sentence a lot of scrolling is involved.

mrchad9 wrote:MoapaPk 2, mrchad9 0

FIFY

When you include a reasonable estimate of the hourly rate for a programmer, and how much he makes off this site, his net profit is probably negative. I am the "owner" of my site and I don't make a damn thing. All "owner" means is that your name is listed as an owner.

We should all be counting our blessings, instead of sheep!

I'd really hate to be a cow living in Kansas right now :

MoapaPk wrote:When you include a reasonable estimate of the hourly rate for a programmer, and how much he makes off this site, his net profit is probably negative. I am the "owner" of my site and I don't make a damn thing. All "owner" means is that your name is listed as an owner.

If your site has ads like SP and gets as much traffic as this one does and you still don't make a damn thing then you are a pretty crappy programmer.

Owner means you get a share of the revenue. You should look it up.

mrchad9 wrote:Owner means you get a share of the revenue. You should look it up.

Actually that's only one of three attributes of a property right, and not all property rights include it. You can, uh, look it up.

Just sayin'.

Arthur Digbee wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Owner means you get a share of the revenue. You should look it up.

Actually that's only one of three attributes of a property right, and not all property rights include it. You can, uh, look it up.

Just sayin'.

Well then you might want to advise your buddy MoapaPk that owner means more than putting your name on a list. And is it your position that as a site owner Matt has no rights to SP revenue?

If not then you are only trolling here.

What a surprise.

Dow Williams wrote: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.

The pats are not disingenuous, Dow. There are many of us who use this site who realize that all of the people involved in running it are, for all practical purposes, volunteers. Some of us have real, responsible jobs and roles in our communities in which we have learned how to treat volunteers. Your approach is not it.

The seething hostility and contempt for just about everybody that comes through in your posts is really pretty breathtaking. Maybe you don't see it. If not, have your wife or GF or somebody read over your shoulder before you push submit.

With that said, you contribute an impressive amount to this site. But it seems to me that you are better compensated for that than just about any other contributor, because for you, the exposure you get from SP is good for business--or for whatever it is you seek from your profession as a "full time climber." It is not a labor of love for you. SP frees you from self-promotion by other means. As you say on your website:
"I no longer update this site on a regular basis. Rather I encourage you to visit my
work on summitpost.org ...."

Because SP is important to you professionally, it is understandable that you care quite a bit about how it is run. That's fine. But there may be more effective ways to communicate your concerns.

mrchad9 wrote:And is it your position that as a site owner Matt has no rights to SP revenue?

Not at all. But you can have a property right without a claim on the revenue.

Motives are complicated. Matt seems to be mostly volunteering here. Dow is volunteering his pages. People have pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. Why are any of us hanging out on this site?

I was not trying to get into a big thing with Moapa and yes, motives are hard to discern, but merely pointing out that the extra work Matt does that the mods do not is in part related to his position as an owner. I do not know what fraction of his work could be considered volunteer or how much return he gets, but at least for him he is not working for free.

Nor should he be.

As for everyone taking issue with Dow's tone... Dow's OP was just trying to convey the importance of the site speed issue and his (and many other's) frustrations with the length of time it has been going on. If he cannot express those frustrations here in Site Feedback where is he supposed to do it?

Surely we don't want him taking it out on his wife or GF right?

I'm NOT complaining, but the other day it took me exactly 23.6 seconds to vote on one of Dow's
pictures.

Damn!

I thought I was bad! And I do it all for fun.

BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM... beat, beat, beat that decaying rotting dead horse.

Personally, considering all the data inputs and folks, worldwide, that are accessing SP on a regular basis, I think that Matt is doing an outstanding job at keeping it running.

BFD that the site has become a little slow, builds character and patience.

Keep up the great efforts and work Matt. And thanks for all the hard dedicated work that you have done for us all over the years here at SP..... FOR FREE!

lcarreau wrote:I'm NOT complaining, but the other day it took me exactly 23.6 seconds to vote on one of Dow's
pictures.

I still think it is a bit unfair to beat down on Dow regardless of the ultimate motives of his post. I agree things could have possible been said in a different tone, but matter of fact is that the site runs slower than some months ago. That is an important problem to convey to Matt, who is the only one who can do something about it. And Matt knows about it and will do his best to improve the issue. It might not be as fast as some people want - for that matter I also want it to be faster yesterday - but it will eventually.

To reiterate Larry's point. I used to vote on many photos before but I simply don't have the patience recently because it also often times (not always) takes a seemingly endless time to cast a vote.

mrchad9 wrote:Surely we don't want him taking it out on his wife or GF right?

Lord no. With all that pent up hostility, we'd have another friggin' OJ on our hands. Bad idea on my part.