Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Chris Barrett on November 24, 2015, 10:27:47 am
-
If you're like me, you have a bookmark straight to this subforum and may have missed the notice on the LuLa homepage. On the 30th of this month, LuLa is becoming a subscription based site. Membership is cheap at a buck a month. The up side to this is you will also now have access to all of the videos and articles that were only previously available at a much higher cost subscription.
Here's the notice (https://luminous-landscape.com/important-news-change-at-luminous-landscape/)
I didn't see any posts about this at first glance, but sorry if it's been covered already.
In the near future, if you want to start another tedious flame war of MFDB vs FF35, you're going to have to put your money where your big fat mouth is.
CB
-
If you're like me, you have a bookmark straight to this subforum and may have missed the notice on the LuLa homepage. On the 30th of this month, LuLa is becoming a subscription based site. Membership is cheap at a buck a month. The up side to this is you will also now have access to all of the videos and articles that were only previously available at a much higher cost subscription.
Here's the notice (https://luminous-landscape.com/important-news-change-at-luminous-landscape/)
I didn't see any posts about this at first glance, but sorry if it's been covered already.
In the near future, if you want to start another tedious flame war of MFDB vs FF35, you're going to have to put your money where your big fat mouth is.
CB
+1
-
I applaud the change, but this is REALLY the wrong forum for it.
-
In the near future, if you want to start another tedious flame war of MFDB vs FF35, you're going to have to put your money where your big fat mouth is.
Yup, and like $12 is going to be a deterrent ...
-
Does that change extend to the forum? Or is it "just" for the rest of the page?
-
Does that change extend to the forum? Or is it "just" for the rest of the page?
"This includes our very active discussion forum"
-
"This includes our very active discussion forum"
That would be sad. And I don't think it would be a good idea. It could happen that the forums get a bit quiet. I rarely read the articles but look at the forums frequently. Of course I can understand the need to monetize the website because. But I see advertisements on the site too (don't know how much money that brings in). But the content in the forum is not created by the lula crew but by the visitors.
I will probably be out if the forums are on a payment basis too.
Michael and Kevin: may I ask if it is possible to make people pay for the content that you produce but keep the forums open to everybody?
-
Dear LL,
I think the $12 a year subscription fee is a bargain. I have learned a lot from the LL community, and I sometimes revisit the LL several times throughout the day. My only complaint about the new guidelines is limiting jpgs to 800 pixels on the long side.
I respectfully ask LL to reconsider the 800 limit and increase the maximum to 1200.
Some photographers post pictures exceeding 800 pixels by a factor of 2X, 3X, or more. No question, IT administration is costly--maintaining servers, optimizing data flow, and managing security.
SO, I appeal to the powers that be, to reconsider upping the maximum pixel count to 1200. That is only a 50% increase. 400 pixels matter. Many photos require more than 800 to view and interpret--subjects, processing techniques, diagrams and charts, etc.
Sincerely,.
BobDavid (Robert D. Rosinsky)
-
While I see direct value in the original content being created by the LuLa team, there are issues that need to be addressed. I found LuLa due to the forums, and the role they have in the community. Read this article as to how StackOverflow overtook ExpertExchange in the IT/Dev environment: http://www.inc.com/alex-moazed/how-this-engineer-turned-his-blog-into-a-400-million-business.html Their #1 platform take away is to 'Don't put up paywalls on content platforms with large amounts of user-generated content'.
The forums are a peer to peer platform that are lightly managed, where answers are from subject matter experts (or what ever we are calling ourselves today). Yes, there is a cost to infrastructure, but putting it behind a paywall is the wrong answer. The forums need consistent participation from unpaid people, otherwise the page views don't happen, and the overall site becomes stagnant. Yes, the same question gets asked over and over, so there is an opportunity to create content directly for that market.
While I can afford the $12, I'd rather that be an optional token that allows folks to see that I am personally invested in the LuLa community. Getting a large enough commitment to make this a viable alternative shouldn't be too hard, but I would suggest doing that first before going full paywall on folks.
-Joe
-
Honestly 12$ is fair - but if the forum access is also restricted that's a no-go for me.
To me a forums worth are the users themselves, they provide the content, they ask questions, give answers, share ideas, give feedback...
I think it would be fair to perhaps limit the "for sale" area but the rest of the forum?
-
That move will sort the chaff from the wheat, I guess I'll be with the chaff.
Good luck with the move, thanks for the fine service and thanks too for the ride.
-
There are already seven pages debating this here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=105668.msg870630#msg870630
-
Thanks for the heads-up on this, Chris. As you say, many of us head to one or more spots in the forums and don't much see the rest of the site.
Alas, count me among those who think this idea of 'monetizing' LuLa - at least the forums - sucks. Although the cost is almost inconsequential, and although I've voluntarily contributed to other websites a few times, I'm philosophically disinclined to have to pay to visit an internet forum. With all due respect to Michael, it's the visitors to those forums that generate the content.
Perhaps from a broad perspective - and as the owner of a website that's surely what one sees - charging a nominal fee makes sense. All those videos. All those articles. All those reviews. Who could possibly begrudge capturing some revenue from those assets?
Well, for a start, the folks who rarely or never consume them.
-
Thanks for the heads-up on this, Chris. As you say, many of us head to one or more spots in the forums and don't much see the rest of the site.
Alas, count me among those who think this idea of 'monetizing' LuLa - at least the forums - sucks. Although the cost is almost inconsequential, and although I've voluntarily contributed to other websites a few times, I'm philosophically disinclined to have to pay to visit an internet forum. With all due respect to Michael, it's the visitors to those forums that generate the content.
Perhaps from a broad perspective - and as the owner of a website that's surely what one sees - charging a nominal fee makes sense. All those videos. All those articles. All those reviews. Who could possibly begrudge capturing some revenue from those assets?
Well, for a start, the folks who rarely or never consume them.
People seem to forget there is a fixed overhead for websites also. The servers, data-redundancy, hosting, domain registration, SSL, network, security, testing and not to mention the actual people doing the work behind the scenes all cost a fair amount of money. It's easy to see ad revenue not making the gap. I can understand putting their service, which is partially providing the forum, behind a paywall to help pay for those costs. Obviously, the high cost they were charging for the videos previously was not making the profit margin (or possibly any profit) they hoped to achieve. So they are trying a different model to drive revenue. The question is, will it be successful?
-
Oh, I definitely get the infrastructure costs involved. I managed IT organizations for many years and fully appreciate that aspect.
I'm also not averse to paying for targeted content. I've bought many videos here on LuLa, including the comprehensive Lightroom tutorial when that software first arrived, and the extensive Screen-to-Print series; and a handful of the monthly productions, back in the day. That stuff wasn't cheap. But I was happy to pay it because it was specific and unique. It was premium content.
The thing I most like about the internet, even above email and social media and online retail - are the various communities that have sprung up on almost any topic you might have an interest in. Participating in those communities has traditionally been free. Some have tried to monetize that corner of the net, but I'm at a loss to point to any that were successful.
-
Thank you for you comments. Michael, Chris and I have been following the topic all day. We have heard you and we will keep the forum as a FREE portion of the Luminous-Landscape site. The rest of the site will be part of the membership site. The exception is the For Sale topic. If you wish to post there you will need to be a member. Thanks for the feedback.
-
* deleted *
-
I am fine with the fee.
I would rather see the discussion forums limited to the paid membership.
-
Free forum access and paid for the for sale seems like fair to me. In the forum the users contribute the value. I go straight to the forum and don't use the main site much. When I get there it's usually because of a google hit on an article.
At $12 a year I wouldn't mind much if the forum would be paid as well, but I don't think it would lead to any increase in "quality", I think it's a larger risk that there would be less people visiting, less content, and also less quality content. The quality content often is a result of someone asking a question, and if there's only paid subscriptions I think there would be less of those questions, and perhaps more of us self-proclaimed experts arguing ;)
But well, when it comes to forum "trolls" I don't really think there is a problem here. I do see that some are very passionate about certain brands or have fixed ideas that X is better than Y and then you get easily upset, but that doesn't disturb me. I've been in "troll-free" forums too, meaning that everyone had the same ideas about everything, and if someone had a different idea they shut up. If that is the alternative I rather have some "trolling". It's after-all those threads that get the most posts, people like to argue, and as long it's civilized I'm fine with that.
-
Forum is free. Trolls are staying. Nothing has changed in this part of the site.
Business as usual.
-
Thanks Kevin, a great example of listening to concerns and taking positive action.
$12 per year is more than fair and the B/S should be a paid for service. Keeping the forum free is so much in the spirit of forums! Happy to sign up.
-
Thank you for you comments. Michael, Chris and I have been following the topic all day. We have heard you and we will keep the forum as a FREE portion of the Luminous-Landscape site. The rest of the site will be part of the membership site. The exception is the For Sale topic. If you wish to post there you will need to be a member. Thanks for the feedback.
That's wonderful, Kevin - a very acceptable compromise.
Jeremy
-
Free forum access and paid for the for sale seems like fair to me. In the forum the users contribute the value. I go straight to the forum and don't use the main site much. When I get there it's usually because of a google hit on an article.
At $12 a year I wouldn't mind much if the forum would be paid as well, but I don't think it would lead to any increase in "quality", I think it's a larger risk that there would be less people visiting, less content, and also less quality content. The quality content often is a result of someone asking a question, and if there's only paid subscriptions I think there would be less of those questions, and perhaps more of us self-proclaimed experts arguing ;)
But well, when it comes to forum "trolls" I don't really think there is a problem here. I do see that some are very passionate about certain brands or have fixed ideas that X is better than Y and then you get easily upset, but that doesn't disturb me. I've been in "troll-free" forums too, meaning that everyone had the same ideas about everything, and if someone had a different idea they shut up. If that is the alternative I rather have some "trolling". It's after-all those threads that get the most posts, people like to argue, and as long it's civilized I'm fine with that.
What a wonderful defense of *free* speech :)
Edmund
-
But well, when it comes to forum "trolls" I don't really think there is a problem here. I do see that some are very passionate about certain brands or have fixed ideas that X is better than Y and then you get easily upset, but that doesn't disturb me. I've been in "troll-free" forums too, meaning that everyone had the same ideas about everything, and if someone had a different idea they shut up. If that is the alternative I rather have some "trolling". It's after-all those threads that get the most posts, people like to argue, and as long it's civilized I'm fine with that.
Others may have a different definition of a "troll". To many, a troll is not just someone who disagrees with some one else, but is more defined with how they disagree (personal attacks, derailments, and such). A troll wants to disrupt, not just disagree.
-
Others may have a different definition of a "troll". To many, a troll is not just someone who disagrees with some one else, but is more defined with how they disagree (personal attacks, derailments, and such). A troll wants to disrupt, not just disagree.
Which would make you a troll, as you just disrupted and derailed a thread on membership by debating definitions ;)
-
There was another forum that the same thing happened To years ago, moving to a paid subscription. The form had no content after the paid subscription and everybody bolted from, that is how I ended up at this form.
-
What a wonderful defense of *free* speech :)
OT but necessary: As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences.’ ”
-
OT but necessary: As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences.’ ”
Americans usually believe in free speech - for themselves. I lived in a US-sponsored dictatorship for many years (Portugal), where every newspaper carried a box saying "approved by the censor" on the front page. It was very important WE should not have free speech, so that freedom would prevail over communism THERE. There was also a nice secret police called the PIDE to prevent people getting bad ideas like a need for elections, because elections are you know, communist. You can find this pattern in a lot of countries where a dictator who was "our bastard" was installed in place of a hostile democracy, Iran or Chile being typical examples. Indonesia saw about 250 000 people killed in the name of anti-communism. Portugal, where I lived was an interesting case, because the US expected the régime to fight soviet-sponsored and Cuba-trained insurgencies in Angola and Mozambique; in the end the portuguese military disagreed with this losing proposition, preferring to mutiny and call for elections.
I'm not saying communism was any better - but US sponsored dictatorships were nasty and brutal. Believe me, I know one can live without free speech, and I learnt first hand that the US will go to considerable lengths to suppress free speech in their allies while calling for it elsewhere. I don't see many articles about the need for elections and free speech and the ceasing of summary executions in Saudi Arabia in the US press, while the lack of freedoms in Russia or North Korea makes CNN every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66)
Edmund
-
My take: charging money for reading articles on the website, fine.
But it is actually the contributors who should be paid for enabling the forum discussions to thrive. Without them, no active forum.
Wrong set of priorities.
If you're like me, you have a bookmark straight to this subforum and may have missed the notice on the LuLa homepage. On the 30th of this month, LuLa is becoming a subscription based site. Membership is cheap at a buck a month. The up side to this is you will also now have access to all of the videos and articles that were only previously available at a much higher cost subscription.
Here's the notice (https://luminous-landscape.com/important-news-change-at-luminous-landscape/)
I didn't see any posts about this at first glance, but sorry if it's been covered already.
In the near future, if you want to start another tedious flame war of MFDB vs FF35, you're going to have to put your money where your big fat mouth is.
CB
-
Good news is they adjusted: Forums free, paying membership for articles, reviews. Makes sense to me.
-
Americans usually believe in free speech - for themselves.
Exactly, and many American's don't understand what free speech, as defined by our constitution actually implies (hence my post). Try yelling fire in a theater these days, see how far "free speech" gets you.
Back OT, it appears Chris, Michael and Kevin have figured this all out pretty well and while I have every intention of signing up and think the fee is super reasonable, I'm happy to see the forums will be free to others. Good call guys!
-
Michael and co built up this site, and they can do whatever they want with it, I wish them the best of luck.
In fact this is a good occasion for me to say "Thank you for the free lunch".
The free forums are a good idea, and will allow the existing community to persist.
Edmund
Exactly, and many American's don't understand what free speech, as defined by our constitution actually implies (hence my post). Try yelling fire in a theater these days, see how far "free speech" gets you.
Back OT, it appears Chris, Michael and Kevin have figured this all out pretty well and while I have every intention of signing up and think the fee is super reasonable, I'm happy to see the forums will be free to others. Good call guys!
-
For those who think their contribution is so valuable that they deserve to be paid for it (instead the other way around), here is the advice: post it in your own blog and see how much traction it is going to get you.
-
For those who think their contribution is so valuable that they deserve to be paid for it (instead the other way around), here is the advice: post it in your own blog and see how much traction it is going to get you.
Well actually I was writing for Ziff when they went into chapter 11 - you know, this minor problem of monetizing content on the web when Google is grabbing all the advertising money. Which is why I understand Michael's problem and am not going to shout about it if he tries to make money as a publisher. However, Slobodan, I do think there is something wrong with the Huffington Post model: Professional writers are getting a really bad deal on the interwebs. Photographers expect to get paid for their work, why should writers be expected to do it for free?
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
Not sure why you are replying to what I wrote, as I didn't have you in mind, nor do I see any connection between what you wrote in this thread and my post above. Perhaps because Theodoros deleted his post I was replying to? I usually quote what I am replying to, but this time I assumed that it will be clear, given that I posted it immediately after his post. My bad. Also, I was referring to forum posts, not columns or articles.
Btw, what is the HuffPost model?
-
Hi Edmund,
Not sure why you are replying to what I wrote, as I do not see any connection between what you wrote in this thread and my post above. Perhaps because Theodoros deleted his post I was replying to? I usually qoute what I am replying to, but this time I assumed that it will be clear, given that I posted it immediately after his post. My bad. Also, I we referring to forum posts, not columns or articles.
Btw, what is the HuffPost model?
Google is your friend :)
Edmund
-
Btw, what is the HuffPost model?
I suspect http://www.huffingtonpost.com
-
I know what the Huffington Post is, just not sure what model Edmund is referring to. So I followed his advice and googled it (emphasis mine):
...The Huffington Post has “built a blog-empire on the backs of thousands of citizen journalists.”... “To grasp The Huffington Post’s business model,” wrote the Los Angeles Times’s Tim Rutten, “picture a galley rowed by slaves and commanded by pirates.”... The fact is, however, that sentiments like Mr. Rutten’s reflect a misunderstanding of The Huffington Post’s business model. Although The Huffington Post does not pay those who volunteer to write blogs for it, this content represents only a small share of its traffic. And, to put it bluntly, many of those blog posts aren’t worth very much.
The whole article here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/the-economics-of-blogging-and-the-huffington-post/?_r=0
-
Interesting discussion on this yesterday "The Media Show" a BBC radio slot.
Many publishers are moving to social media sites (Huffingto Post speaker was on) and Apple News etc as that is where the young audience is getting news and following links, web home pages are slowly dying. One speaker likened it to traditional newsprint: Like print output our site is still there but as the users die off so will it, strange to be talking like that of a medium that still feels, to me at least, new. Their long term horizon was 2/3 years !!
I read the privacy document on the Apple News App, well some of it, I have not signed up.
The "Daily Mirror" (Part of the Murdoch empire) tabloid UK paper was behind a paywall, the only way to go, no alternative, they said last year or so. No longer.
I understand the response from the owners here to making the Forum section free to user, the response from the user base was clear. What I think will happen is those users who value that section are appeased but the majority of them will not sign up to pay.
I understand the imperative to generate a return but it's the value placed on new content, what is there now will still be free from the archive sites if you know where to look, so its only going to be new content, and the videos, available to subscribers, and tenuous "special offers".
The web democratised access and publishing now it's heading back to large monopolies who don't need a paywall to thrive.
I wish the site well.
PS Will removing posts now remove them from the web archives?
-
... I'm also all against your tone of belittling anyone's offerings...
James,
I appreciate you took the time to address me personally and my tone and viewpoints, and since you raised a number of interesting points, the significance of which goes well beyond yours truly, I would love to address them (you knew I would).
But before that, I would need to understand better what you meant by what I quoted above. Which offerings are we talking about and how am I belittling them?
-
Slobodan,
I may not agree but accept the contrarion viewpoint you seem to enjoy and continually display but I do accept it because it makes people think and respond.
I'm all against saying that what anyone writes, post, displays, photographs, motion-graphs should be anyone's for the taking.
I'm also all against your tone of belittling anyone's offerings. If you don't like it don't read ignore it, but honestly you must like it because you almost always respond.
+1....
-
I will join US$12/year but I hope forum will be Free open to any persons.
-
As stated above...The Forums will continue to be free, except for the For Sale part. We do have a lot of short and long range projects planned. We are excited and hope our readers will enjoy the site and what we have coming. And, thanks to all that will be part of our future.
-
As stated above...The Forums will continue to be free, except for the For Sale part. We do have a lot of short and long range projects planned. We are excited and hope our readers will enjoy the site and what we have coming. And, thanks to all that will be part of our future.
If the "for sale" part won't be view able from outsiders, then there will be no benefit for subscribers to list there as the vast majority of possible customers won't have access... Mind you that 90% of the listings (and members) is common with "Get DPI" and most current new subscribers are subscribing (to both fotums) exactly because of the sales threads.... (which are by far the most "live" ones)... MO is that if you decide to "close" the sales forum to subscribers, you'll lose subscribers than gaining... just my 2 cents... ;)
-
I will join US$12/year but I hope forum will be Free open to any persons.
Chiek, I have responded with more info on the "other thread" and would be glad to hear back from you on the solutions...
-
J,
The clean way to make money off a web site these days is by an open site with some sponsored content, marked as such.
If all else fails, I will donate a few decent bottles of wine to any forum members who want to come to an annual times bygone reunion here in Paris - I am sure we could even turn this into a movable feast, doing a trip to a new place every year :)
Edmund
The way the huff Post works is they pick and chose anything they want to copy or link to, just to feed their user base and turn a profit. Actually they sold their site to some company like google or yahoo (I don't really follow this stuff cause I don't care) but they did sell their site for big money.
That's the way modern media works, the don't actually hire journalists, image creators, they just link to them or copy their work and the people that create by learning, studying, working, vetting their sources are paid pennies, or nothing instead of a living wage.
Is it legal . . . I guess so because they seem to keep doing it. Is it moral? To me taking someone else's content and using it for commerce is wrong.
Slobodan,
I may not agree but accept the contrarion viewpoint you seem to enjoy and continually display but I do accept it because it makes people think and respond.
I'm all against saying that what anyone writes, post, displays, photographs, motion-graphs should be anyone's for the taking.
I'm also all against your tone of belittling anyone's offerings. If you don't like it don't read ignore it, but honestly you must like it because you almost always respond.
Let's be real, this all comes down to this forum and as I said I'm all for Michael and Chris making bank cause they give us a place to talk and commune and I respect them for their efforts and base honesty.
But I'm against Kevin (and excuse me if I'm wrong but my limited experience and view of Kevin is once a PR guy always a PR guy) for attempting a way to make money from not paying for content but using it to drive a user base and the only reason he changed his view is because people I know that produce interesting content were willing to walk.
Whether you, Kevin or the Huff Post thinks it's ok or legal means little to me.
But is my or others content worth money. Yes and I can show you my very large tax liabilities to prove it.
It's the idea that taking this content for free then selling it I find wrong.
Unfortunately I don't think this is over. Once tried and failed means one more time to try it again and guys like Kevin never give up, the just come back with a different plan and that is why I began removing posts and content.
PS. If I'm wrong on my view of Kevin my contact numbers are always available and I'm willing to hear to a different view from him personally. Then If wrong I'll report so.
IMO
BC
-
Forum is free. Trolls are staying. Nothing has changed in this part of the site.
Business as usual.
Jajaja. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they should put in effect a pay to troll policy. $12 a year for first offenders, with a 2nd offence it goes up to $24, 3rd $48 and so on. At last that would make the trolls useful in maintaining the site instead of discouraging participation and hence contributions...
-
Jajaja. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they should put in effect a pay to troll policy. $12 a year for first offenders, with a 2nd offence it goes up to $24, 3rd $48 and so on. At last that would make the trolls useful in maintaining the site instead of discouraging participation and hence contributions...
Some of these guys would have to sell their backs for even more than P1's list price ;D
-
Some of these guys would have to sell their backs for even more than P1's list price ;D
If they even own one. Most if not all do not. They dedicate their online lives to pounding on Phase One at every opportunity (or they create their own) and will not rest until PhaseOne falters and goes out of business and only used backs (cheap I might add) are left if anything. The sad thing is that it is only a handful of folks that do this but basically damage most threads in this forum. Had I been a moderator I would have not ben so patient. Funny thing is that if those trolls put all that effort into other aspects of their lives they would probably have so much money that the price of a new IQ380 and XF kit would be the equivalent to them of me buying a happy meal.
Anyway, back on topic.
I am really looking forward to the new content that Michael and Kevin (and others) are going to post and also the overall future of this site.
-
If they even own one. Most if not all do not. They dedicate their online lives to pounding on Phase One at every opportunity (or they create their own) and will not rest until PhaseOne falters and goes out of business and only used backs (cheap I might add) are left if anything. The sad thing is that it is only a handful of folks that do this but basically damage most threads in this forum. Had I been a moderator I would have not ben so patient. Funny thing is that if those trolls put all that effort into other aspects of their lives they would probably have so much money that the price of a new IQ380 and XF kit would be the equivalent to them of me buying a happy meal.
Anyway, back on topic.
I am really looking forward to the new content that Michael and Kevin (and others) are going to post and also the overall future of this site.
Ha, so true.
-
Agreed and the For Sale forum is another entirely user-written forum which I consider does not justify payment for. It's not that USD12 a year is a great cost but I expect the cost of running this site is covered by advertisements and product sales.
Google provides free forums through Google Groups and we could all migrate there. In fact, right after this post, I will set up through Google Groups a free Worldwide camera and photography gear for sale group. All welcome for free.
Roger
PS Group now set up. Go to: Worldwide camera & photography gear for sale Google Group. You must have a Google account to post but you do not need a gmail address.
If the "for sale" part won't be view able from outsiders, then there will be no benefit for subscribers to list there as the vast majority of possible customers won't have access... Mind you that 90% of the listings (and members) is common with "Get DPI" and most current new subscribers are subscribing (to both fotums) exactly because of the sales threads.... (which are by far the most "live" ones)... MO is that if you decide to "close" the sales forum to subscribers, you'll lose subscribers than gaining... just my 2 cents... ;)
-
As I understand the way it should work, the For Sale area will be readable by all (thus open to searches) but in that single section, only members may post - unlike the rest of the Forum which will be totally open.
Chris S
-
As I understand the way it should work, the For Sale area will be readable by all (thus open to searches) but only members may post.
Chris S
It would still lead to only some people listing equipment here (at the beginig) and on other forums as well and the other forums to have much more listings (and choices for buyers as a result...). Eventually, the "for sale" thread will fade out as buyers would find the equipment listed here existing on other forums and many more additional choices on these other forums too... It will end up to subscribers finding worthless to list equipment here, when a possible sale will only come from other lists...
-
Hi,
Same here. Actually, I feel that the forums are the greatest value at LuLa and I am happy to hear they stay free.
In a way, I would say I feel that LuLa has been a bit weak on content lately, but that may depend on taste. Personally, I like Jeff Schewe stuff, he is sort of both knowledgeable and quite entertaining… To be honest, I appreciate both!
And yes, I will gladly accept any reasonable fee to keep things up and running.
Best regards
Erik
I will join US$12/year but I hope forum will be Free open to any persons.
-
...Eventually, the "for sale" thread will fade out as buyers would find the equipment listed here existing on other forums and many more additional choices on these other forums too... It will end up to subscribers finding worthless to list equipment here, when a possible sale will only come from other lists...
If that turns out to be the case, it is simply remedied - this is not written in stone. We hope to get readers for the site - not simply For Sale posters.
-
If that turns out to be the case, it is simply remedied - this is not written in stone. We hope to get readers for the site - not simply For Sale posters.
Yeah... but members on sites are mainly attracted because of the sale forum... It could (it will IMO) affect the whole site...
-
Hi,
A reasonable approach, if I may say...
Best regards
Erik
As I understand the way it should work, the For Sale area will be readable by all (thus open to searches) but in that single section, only members may post - unlike the rest of the Forum which will be totally open.
Chris S
-
I want to take the time to thank LULA guys, Michael and Kevin and all here that post in the forum. It's been a long time and a lot of learning.
The first few years I never dared to post, I just read and learnt. I think it was after reading the 100 something pages in the Architecture Photography topic, that I did my first move.
So glad that now I get to watch all those videos for a $1 a month.
Thanks LULA.
-
My thanks too to all of the above.
I look forward to the new voyage.
Eric Myrvaagnes
-
Well, I just paid my $12.
Seems fair.
-
I have been trying to pay for a few hours... no luck... will try again tonight.
The verifications questions to be able to post this are the most cumbersome I have ever seen.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I only get "You don't have access to purchase this item."
-
If you receive the You Have No Access, Try logging on with your email and current password.
-
I tried that, and the login succeeds but I still get the "You have no access to purchase this item". I'd really like to purchase as I want to post on the for sale forum...
-
I forgot to login (after having reset my computer).
I noticed that the pictures on the For Sale section are not visible till you login.
Not sure what the benefit is. Those who pay for posting an item want also guests to see their stuff, no.
-
I have been trying to pay for a few hours... no luck... will try again tonight.
I had the same problem this morning. Visa was refused. Not sure why.
-
I'm down with the $12 and I've experienced no problems browsing the pay side with either mobile or desktop once I logged in on each device.
For me everything is working smoothly.
-
Once again a reminder if you have had or have problems logging in use the help button on the bottom right of the screen used for logging on. Our web guys will look into things and fix them for you as quickly as possible. They only check the forum posts once a day. They get the help message right away. Most issues are a simple fix and many of the issues have been worked out. Most issues we have experienced have to do with log on credentials from the forum or previous purchases. If your credit card is being refused you may need to make sure you have entered your address. Some cards require an address for verification, others don't. Also make sure all information is entered properly. Once again if you experience a problem use the help button and let us know if it is a credit card payment issue or Paypal issue. Thanks.
-
The best thing you ever did for your website and for us was to introduce the $12 membership fee and give full access to your wealth of material on this website. So much to view, so much to learn.
Thank you guys, subscribing is the best thing I have done on the internet for quite a long time!
-
Kevin,
I think some people would like to pay more. :)
Maybe a benefactor membership?
Edmund
The best thing you ever did for your website and for us was to introduce the $12 membership fee and give full access to your wealth of material on this website. So much to view, so much to learn.
Thank you guys, subscribing is the best thing I have done on the internet for quite a long time!