UKH

Apologies (sort of) for the click-baity title, but I wanted to respond to some of the grumbling about people a) being asked to 'support' (i.e. pay for) UKC, and b) moaning about pop-up reminders to consider doing this.

Allow me to explain.

There is something deeply wrong with how most of us interact with internet resources. Basically, we have come to want and expect everything for free. But anything worthwhile takes money to create. The business model of the internet that has now evolved and become dominant, however, is one where advertising pays for things because end-point users won't - and thus creates the illusion of things being free to the users. But they aren't - what happens instead is that we, the users, are the product, because it's our data that is being harvested and sold. 

If you're Facebook or Google, this is tickety-boo and the profits roll in, and surveillance capitalism (for it is you, being surveilled, with your data then sold on) placates you with apparently free stuff in return.

But if you want things that are not vastly profitable on the basis of tracking you online and selling your data for a profit you'll never see any slice of, then you have to change your mindset. Just because something is on the internet, doesn't mean you should see it as an automatic right to have it for free.

For example, I started supporting Sam Harris's podcast, Making Sense, this year. It's flawed (as is he) but it's good quality audio content that I enjoy listening to and get something out of. Now why on earth shouldn't I pay for that? He provides a service, I derive a benefit - so it's fair that I should pay the £4 a month he asks. When I go to the shops to buy clothes or food, I don't expect those for free. I don't expect to get into football games or the cinema for free. Why should something be free just because I access it via the internet, even though it clearly takes time and money for somebody else to produce?

Similarly, even though The Guardian annoys me in all kinds of ways, I pay about £10 a month to be a Guardian supporter. This is much less than if I was buying the paper copy every day, incidentally, but it's also fair because I use their coverage (sport rather than news or opinion, which is pretty shoddy these days) and download their podcasts (mainly just Football Weekly, but that's twice a week). Again, I am getting a product that costs money to produce - so why shouldn't I pay for it?

In the cases of Sam Harris and The Guardian, this is doubly important: they need to be able to be financially solvent whilst not having editorial discretion curtailed by advertising pressure. This is nothing short of essential if democracies are to survive, by the way. If everything becomes reliant on advertising algorithms, it's the Fox News and Daily Mails of the world that will survive, not real reporting.

UKC is different, because it's not a politically-motivated or charged outlet. But with the collapse in advertising revenue sparked by what is sure to be a devastating coronavirus recession, the old business model may not work. If you, however, enjoy and use UKC service - the news updates, but especially the forums and logbooks - then I suggest that you think of it as only fair that you consider paying for what you use. The sum being asked is not exorbitant.

Of course, not everybody can afford this at the present time. Belts are tightening, and some genuinely cannot. For that reason, it is entirely right that the website does not go behind a paywall (which anyway would see it fail because too many people would just refuse to pay). 

My point, however, is that if you are moaning about UKC asking you to be a supporter, the problem is not with UKC, but with our widespread attitude that 'if it's online, it should be free'. And this needs to change.

You wouldn't go into your local gear shop, play with all the gear, leaf through and write in all the guidebooks, set up camp and drink free cups of coffee all day, and not expect the staff to expect you to buy something. If you want a service, it's fair that you pay for it if you can afford it. Online should be no different.

Again, I understand not everybody can afford it. But if you can afford it, and just want it for free - maybe it's time to have an honest think about your attitude to the world of online. Because the business model we have grown use to in these things is not just broken, it's dangerous - and unless we all get used to paying for quality content, then we can sure as hell get used to losing that content and being left with nothing but amateur hour side efforts on the one hand, and Mail Online on the other.

I'm not trying to have a go at anyone specifically here. It's just that I had a bit of an epiphany about these things earlier in the year. We badly need to change the way we think about the internet - and the coronavirus recession only makes that more true and more urgent than it already was becoming.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

"Allow me to explain."

That's the source of at least half of your dislikes, Paul. 

(also I have not seen that much grumbling)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Not quite sure what you mean?

Interesting that I get 9 dislikes but nobody has yet explained why I'm wrong...

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Bit condescending, isn't it. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Oh, I didn't mean it that way. In my neck of the woods (political philosophy) it's a fairly standard, neutral, throat-clearing exercise to introduce a pause before the meat of the argument begins.

Wasn't intended to be condescending. Though OK, I can see why it might come across that way. Apologies.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Well firstly it's the business model the internet chose (probably to the detriment of other existing models) and if it isn't robust enough to survive a couple of months blip then that's for them to rethink, not us.

Secondly the forum is user-generated content and the only part I ever use, why should I be expected to contribute to the rest?

In reply to jimtitt:

This. Forum contribution and presenting a well defined advertising target they can sell to their commercial clients must be enough. If this fails and the forum becomes subscription only I will be out, it is simply not important enough for me.

Actually, being constantly reminded to subscribe, both by popups and by posters may be enough to drive me away. You guys remind me of the sad "volunteers" spending their time unpaid in Apple clubs, proselytizing for nerd jesus.

CB

edit: "You guys" of course makes no sense, it should have been in reference to the OP.

In reply to PaulJepson:

I think it's meant to a rhetorical flourish, in keeping with the 'argument presented as one might give a speech' rather than 'yelling at imaginary pigeons in the virtual UKC bandstand'.

To the point of the thread, it's not unreasonable for sites to encourage users to pay, but using the comparison to how people buy (or used to buy) newspapers, or theoretically parasitise a gear shop, might be a little flawed. For one thing, the great boon of the internet is that an impossibly huge amount of content is available , and as someone pointed out on a different thread it would quickly become enormously expensive to contribute to everything one looked at. That in itself isn't a reason not to ask for money, but it's certainly a reason people could be unwilling to pay. 
In the days of daily-delivered newspapers, one would generally pick one that seemed reasonable and stick with it, not buy all of them, and any number of magazines too. Partly this was due to expense, but also to practicality - they are physical items that take up space, need efort to distribute and are produced in finite amounts. Things on the internet, however, can be viewed pretty much infinitely, pretty much anywhere. Of course there's still effort involved in creating the content (and running servers and power grids and whatnot), but it's not quite the same, and so I suppose isn't generally regarded in the same way by readers/users.

edit: ah, it took so long to type the 'condescending' issue was already answered. Sorry

In reply to nufkin:

Three things:

1) My guess is that UKC costs more to maintain than people realise, and that the user-generated content piggy-backs considerably off infrastructure that ain't free to keep going.

2) In reply to Jim Titt: it's not clear to me that things should only survive, or be considered worthy of survival, if they are viable under one particular business model, especially in times of external shock and unprecedented economic adversity. That's close to saying "if the market doesn't provide it, it shouldn't exist". And surely we don't want to say that about a whole host of things - art, education, etc. Why not e.g. UKC?

3) I get it that not everybody thinks they use UKC enough for it to be worth them paying for. And yeah,I read other websites besides the Guardian and the UKC and I don't pay for them directly. My point is really just: its not unreasonable for all of us to start thinking more along the lines of "well if I use it, maybe I should pay a little for it". Accept entirely that not everybody will find UKC meets this threshold for them. But I do suspect that a lot of the time we - I include myself in this - tell ourselves little porkies about how much we use something because we don't want to feel like we should have to pay for it, because we don't want to pay for it, in part because we are used to getting everything online for free.

In reply to cb294:

If you’re on here a lot, you’re obviously deriving a fair bit of value from the site so getting all ruffled at being asked to stick as little as 40p per week on the collection plate seems at best extremely tight fisted.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

"You wouldn't go into your local gear shop, play with all the gear, leaf through all the guidebooks, set up camp and drink free cups of coffee all day, and not expect the staff to expect you to buy something."

This is  exactly what climbers do, do you not, how odd. 

In reply to J1234:

Yes they do - I know people who are proud of it. The consequence of course is that shops close, we lose access to informed advice and another venue for social interaction disappears. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Not tight fisted, but making a judgement on principle. I have no problem paying for guide books or topo apps, and I do have internet subscriptions to newpapers, where I pay for the journalism which, unlike here, is the main part of what I get out of these sites. Here, for me it is mostly the user generated content in the forum.

CB

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Never thought I'd see art, education and UKC in the same sentence.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

re: 'Allow me to explain.'

It's a lazy, unnecesssary, and pretentious cliche. A similar one, which was in vogue amongst certain low-quality writers a few years back, was 'Here's why.'

Both add precisely nothing to any argument. Just drop 'em.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

And on this:

I haven't seen much moaning here. Are you making this up?

In reply to Paul Sagar:

UKC has never been free. Nor has, pretty much, any other forum on the interwebbynet. It's just we pay for it in a different way.

It may be on a smaller scale than Facebook or Google but it still generates data and advertising sales. That has a value. Just because we don't part with cash doesn't mean we haven't paid...

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Until business models change, why should people pay for their data to be harvested so that they can be advertised to more effectively. I'm all for supporting businesses which I deem important but I would like to be able to opt out of my data being collected and stored if I'm paying for a service. No-ones asking for my details if I buy a paper.

Seems like UKC should go one way or the other but it's not unreasonable for people to not pay for a service that is still free, it's a bit like saying 'I donated £10 to walk in this park and look at all these c@#ts doing it for free' - good on you for donating but I doesn't mean everyone has too. Maybe they could run a split service with some free content and a VIP section for those who pay.

In reply to cb294:

While I personally decided to pay, I agree that annoying people with too many reminders and intrusive reminders is likely to be counter-productive. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Do you mean “Here’s the thing?”

mic drop 😃

In reply to Paul Sagar:

My attitude to websites is affected by whether there is significant member/user generated content that gives a sense of mutuality and belonging rather than the sense of subscribing and consuming. If I write for a magazine I get paid; if I contribute to a forum I don't and may want to support the running costs of the forum. UKC/UKH straddle the magazine-forum model and my choice to subscribe hinges on how I value the editorial content versus the forum/logbook provision.

The choice of subscription cost must have been difficult, but I think you would have had more uptake from 'forumites' by pitching it at the £10 or even £5 a year level. The magazine content doesn't appeal so much to me as I tend to avoid magazines, but my willingness to subscribe is determined just as it would be for a paper magazine- do I like the content enough?

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Thanks Paul for starting this thread.

It isn't a message that we want to overemphasise ourselves. The system is set up as entirely voluntary and that is how we intend to keep it. The gentle nudge of the supporter reminder pop-up is all we are going to do. If people want to subscribe then fine, if they don't then that is fine too.

We did implement the supporter scheme in these difficult times however it was always in our plan and it isn't just intended to get us through these months. This is the model for the future and hopefully, once things return to normal, it will enable us to do more with the website.

Alan

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Personally I don't have a problem with the collection bowl model where I'm clearly just a consumer but where I am also content generator/product I'm less comfortable. As I don't contribute say to Wikipedia and find it enormously valuable and interesting I'm happy to occasionally stump up (though wouldn't subscribe). If I thought subscription or pay-per-piece news wouldn't still bombard me with content ruining pop-up and auto-play ads I'd perhaps be less averse.

Jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No argument there, however this is about UKC, and to be honest I am not that sympathetic because of Guidebooks and the way they have got climbers to populate their database via wiki, to then sell the info back to climbers, having said that UKC/Rockfax are clever, innovative and hardworking and the other guidebook producers were, should we say slow off the mark, and Rockfax have in some way improved guidebooks.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

To continue with the debate though, I would like to get a response from someone who disagrees with Paul's original post AND also uses advert blocking software. 

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Does that A word not result in an automatic ban anymore?

I use multiple devices and some have block software, but on UKC I do not find the adverts intrusive at all, though I think I may have clicked on them once or twice if that.

I think you run a great site, and wish you all the luck in the world, but would be very loathe to pay, and if you put a full pay wall in place, may be pleased, as it would stop me using UKC, which I think I look at too much.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I disagree with quite a bit of it BUT I'm happy to have the adverts as substitute.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

This prompted the post today: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/climbing_inspiration_supported_... 

And then just remembering some grumbles in the comments from people when the Supporter scheme originally went live.

Really I just wanted to kick open a debate about how things should be funded in the age of surveillance capitalism and whether we are cool with the status quo (I'm not). 

In reply to J1234:

Honest question, and this is not meant as a nark or provocation: if, as you say, you look at UKC a lot every day...is it not fair to pay 40p a day in return?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Or..

FACT!

Period!

Etc. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Fair question. It's more complex than that for some climbers and it revolves around guidebooks and rockfax and it's all a bit political, and that these climbers love and hate rockfax.

Also people try to externalise cost, as a subset climbers take this to a whole new level, it's just part of being a climber to be tight.

I find climbers and climbing clubs fascinating, and I am late to academeia, but I would do a PHD on the social interactions of climbers.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Just as a data point, part of why I decided to pay is because I do use the unmentionable software. 

As I've said before, that's not because I object to adverts. Indeed, I'm quite happy with the principle of adverts, especially targeted ones.  If DMM have a new gizmo then I positively want to know about it. 

But, to me, adverts involving motion (that is, all of them), are not tolerable.  Any motion in my vision field when I'm trying to read something gives me motion sickness (literally).  So do transition effects.  I have no option but to install the most draconian software I can find to have as static a webpage as possible. 

And if only I could find a browser or browser option that would set all transition times to zero, thus disabling all transition effects, I would be a happy bunny indeed! 

If there were some way of getting static adverts only then I'd happily opt for that rather than zapping everything. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I think a lot of people underestimate how much it costs to run a high traffic website, and overestimate revenue from online advertising.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Never used them myself so cant recommend any but there are a few plugins for disabling gifs for both chrome and firefox so might be worth trying one of them out.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Do you pay a television licence fee?

In reply to Paul Sagar:

 That's close to saying "if the market doesn't provide it, it shouldn't exist". And surely we don't want to say that about a whole host of things - art, education, etc. Why not e.g. UKC?

Are you suggesting that, exceptionally amongst websites, UKC should benefit from taxpayer funding from central government? Or are you saying that users should subsidise an enterprise which isn't, actually, viable?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Have you considered offering a range of options? Given the wide range of opinions amongst UKC participants it looks like this could be a good way to go.

This article explores some of these possibilities although given it's your job I'm sure you're already aware of many of these:

https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/why-micropayments-arent-dead-yet/

As it notes, the Guardian's done quite well from their donations model. 

A site I've been using for a long time has been the Tidbits Apple user site. I've had a regular newsletter free from them for many years, and started subscribing to them a while back. But they offer a range of different ways of supporting them, from one-off payments to mega-subscriptions:

https://tidbits.com/membership/levels/

How well this is working for them I'm not sure but I can see how it could work.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I don't exactly disagree with Paul but nor do I agree with him. I recognise there is a problem but I'm not convinced this is the solution.

I routinely and have for a few years run @d bl0cking software because it makes the internet work properly again: getting rid of pop-ups, auto-running video, slow loading, constantly resizing ads that shuffle text and scroll bars around for ages after you've started reading and just lots of irrelevant clutter I am not remotely interested in. Generally where I've been blocked from using a site with an ad bl0cker I just stop going back, if sites work ok with the @ds I'm happy to ignore them but many don't. My local paper (actually a nationwide chain of websites in its online guise) is so cluttered with @ds it simply crashes my browser without a blo0cker running but now won't provide content with one running, a mutual loss really. I don't think I've ever clicked through and bought from a web @d, frankly I'm astonished they're considered worth the money put into them, I do wonder how many really are worth it!

I disable the bl0cker on UKC because the ads are not disruptive and because I don't want to pay directly particularly by subscription. A one-off as you feel/can payment given the current difficult circumstances I'd be more comfortable with.

edit: I was somewhat irritatingly bl0cked from posting this by UKC hence the @'s and 0's

jk

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes I absolutely do. And basically from the same principle: I think the BBC is important, I derive a lot of value from its services - directly in form of things on iPlayer; indirectly from having a proper news reporting agency which whilst flawed is vastly preferable to e.g. American models - and so I think it is fair I pay for it. I also like the it doesn't have adverts!

In fact, I set up a direct debit last month, happily so, as this was much more convenient than paying in one big lump sum. £15 a month or whatever is about twice what I pay for Netflix, but I think BBC is a much, much more valuable social institution than Netflix. Bargain as far as I'm concerned, even if I like everyone else gets frustrated at things the BBC does (like give climate change deniers air time, or allows Laura K to crawl up Cummings' backside instead of holding him to account, etc.)

Similarly I pay my £45 a year for a rod license even though these days I rarely go fishing (even more rarely now that I'm housebound with a broken leg just as closed season is about to end...), even though I've never been asked to produce one, ever, in the past, because the Environment Agency do incredibly important work and I'm happy to support that.

In reply to Siward:

I'm saying if the users think its worthwhile, they might want to consider helping make it viable.

The free market and state communism are hardly the only options on the table here...

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Good.

The "absolutely" was as superfluous as my pointing it out. 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I absolutely agree.  The static ads have always been of interest to me, but the flashing/moving ones cause a great deal of brain pain. Refresh does NOT get rid of them. I stopped using UKC for a good while due to the flashing ads.  I wonder if the advertisers that don't use flashing ones realise how much viewing they lose out on due to installation of blocking software entirely due to the flashing ads...

In reply to Paul Sagar:

"1) My guess is that UKC costs more to maintain than people realise,"

Maybe it does.

If using it and getting ads for revenue doesn't work then look for subscribers.

As it is I wouldn't pay for it, if it goes fair enough.

I'd pay for Strava (I get it for free because of my history with them), but not UKC. Maybe it will improve and I'd pay but I'm not much of a climber.

But for me its like Facebook, I expect them to sell data and use ad space, you dont get anything for free in life.

I do think your post was overly antagonistic.

I do wonder if UKC will struggle for subscribers because of their history of banning posters. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

It was meant to refer to the fact that I've faithfully paid it for many years

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's strange, until you mentioned it I hadn't noticed the flashing signs on the side of my page. We all obviously experience things very differently.

As long as it's not an ad that jumps around blocking what you are reading like on some news sites I don't mind. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

"in part because we are used to getting everything online for free."

But we don't. Nothing is free. It would be a pretty simple person who thinks UKC/Facbook etc are ran out of a kindness of heart and not to make a profit - which is no bad thing at all. Profit has become an ugly word for some reason.

I use facebook daily but I have never complained about them selling data or targeting ads. That is how the service is paid for.

In reply to J1234:

Do you think there's anything particularly distinctive about the social interactions within a climbing club compared to any other group of hobbyists, such as a Sunday league football club or a railway modelling club? Perhaps that's a topic for another thread though.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Thanks for the links Bob, I will check those out. We are reasonably happy about how it is working to be honest. The combination with the app has done well over the last month or so and take-up is around what we expected. Because ad sales and book sales work on a 2-3 month lag, the lockdown effect hasn't properly kicked in yet, however, we have been able to build up a decent cash cushion that should see us through pending no more lockdowns!

Alan

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I guess I've been sensitised to it over time (I'm also the sort of person who would never read while a passenger in a car, which others can do without a problem).   Since I need to look at computer screens a lot of the time for work reasons, I can't afford to get motion-sickness "triggered".   So static-only for me.  (And it really is so much nicer!)  But, I really would be willing to click on static adverts for DMM gizmos or whatever, out of genuine interest. 

In reply to jkarran:

Not to raise the ugly spectre that those who post intelligent, accurate and informed information are now being expected to pay to provide a platform for politically motivated garbage, lies and disinformation.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Don't try one of those new VR pod things then! I nearly puked when I had a go in one back in February. They are pretty amazing...but if you get motion sickness, the technology isn't going to get along with you at all. (I don't get motion sickness from cars, but I will throw up prolifically on a boat that is rocking on the sea.)

In reply to jimtitt:

I realise that you made this in jest, but we really aren't expecting people to pay for anything if they don't want to.

Alan

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Hmm. Flawed history there. The internet was always free, in fact the internet and the services that live on it originally had very little even in the way of security because it was not only commercially free but intellectually free.

Then what happened is a load of commercially motivated folk found their way in, and just like every other aspect of life immediately set about closing it down and working out how to make people way for it.

This is not intended to be a barb at UKC specifically, nor am I simplistic to enough to think that the internet in its current guise is really all that similar to the internet as it was, but the wording of your post sticks in my craw a bit.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Paul Sagar does.

In reply to mullermn:

Um, the internet was never free, it was just paid for by universities.

In reply to J1234:

It's not entirely one way. I have made good use of the logbook database in writing the shortly to be published CC Baggy and Culm guide (shameless plug). I've also used the forum to ask for help with the guide. Before starting this, I asked Alan if he was OK with me doing so and he said that was fine - just what the database is for. On the plus side for UKC, Alan gets me moderating the Culm for him and I am intending to acknowledge UKC's contribution in thebook.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Of course, and you know that beforehand. I am therefore happy to disable my ad_block and not faking disablement for this site, as most ads do indeed, at least potentially, match my interests.

CB

In reply to jimtitt:

It is an interesting point that you raise. I was thinking (in jest) earlier this afternoon that it would be an interesting experiment for UKC to suspend access, for a week each time, to all posters in the Top 20 who have not paid to be UKC Supporters. Of course they would never do this, and it would not really be much of a useful experiment, but it would be fun! 

In reply to gribble and Coel Hellier:

In Firefox it's fairly easy to turn off gif animation, or set to play once rather than looping. Can be done in other browsers too. Makes a good compromise because, yeah, some of the animated ones are f**ng intolerable but if they only play once and then stop you still get to see DMM's latest widget and maybe click on it and cause UKC to receive 0.000001p

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Have you climbed on Lundy yet? Take a spare sick bag.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Just to correct this misnomer .... that is not how it works. If you click on an advert on UKC we don’t receive any money, and neither do the brand, nor some other random company (ignoring bandwidth charges from service providers).

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sorry. Happy to be corrected.

In reply to jkarran:

For real? That's quite pathetic, if so.

In reply to jimtitt:

What, no. I suggested that if you like UKC and derive some good from what it provides, you might consider paying for it. In the same way you pay for other goods and services you derive some good, pleasure or benefit from.

Notice that you can support a platform, without agreeing with everything that's on it. I think a lot of the opinion pieces on e.g. the Guardian are drivel but overall it's something worth supporting. I've been vocal here on UKC before about my disagreement with one particular contributor's articles. But it is possible not to have a black and white view such that if I don't agree with everything on e.g. a website, I should conclude that I shouldn't consider even paying for even the bits I do get something out of.

I never suggested that people should pay for stuff they don't want. That would be crazy. But given that you're on here almost every day, I find it hard to believe you don't really want it. Now it's still entirely up to you whether you want to consider supporting it or not. But don't accuse me of saying things I blatantly didn't. 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

That was supposed to be the big September trip before teaching started again! Alas, coronavirus was making that look especially unlikely, and my broken leg looks like it's definitely out...

In reply to jimtitt:

You use this website on a daily basis, and you don’t think it is reasonable to contribute towards its not insignificant costs? Like for example, hosting, updating the site, moderating the forum, and probably a load of other things I’ve not thought of.

I don’t think UKC gain anything from what you (or I, or anyone else for that matter) contribute to the forums. 

FYI: I’ve not subscribed because I’ve not earned a penny since lockdown. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Which is different from:-

"Then I suggest that you think of it as only fair that you consider paying for what you use."

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Without traffic the website attracts no advertisers and no revenue, it is their business model not mine. If the forum content degenerates to drivel and endless political garbage it will go the way of Supertopo.

In reply to jimtitt:

Which is not the same as 

"Paul Sagar is expecting people to pay for anything if they don't want to."

Paul Sagar is actually suggesting that you might think about whether, really, you want to be the kind of person who takes, but doesn't give. Maybe you might even consider changing your mind about what you do and don't want to pay for. 

Obviously not. But maybe others might feel differently. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I've got the camping barn booked for mid Sept. Doesn't look hopeful. And to think we worried about norovirus on previous visits. I'd happily settle for a day of projectile vomiting if it got me there this year! 

In reply to jimtitt:

But you clearly get a great deal from UKC (otherwise why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time posting on here?) I don’t see how contributing a very small amount towards the site hardly seems much to ask?

I bet you purchased climbing mags back in the day, which is real terms were far more expensive, and less interactive. 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Yeah, a friend had a booking for somewhere on the island (I forget where) for a week in September for a bunch of us - luckily they have agreed to just let us have the same week in 2021 if everything is still shut down in September. If not, I reckon I can probably second stuff by then....

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Maybe he stole them, and when challenged said "That's the capitalist business model and they need to pay for the police enforcement of their property rights, and until they do I don't see why I shouldn't just take whatever I want?"

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I was thinking that maybe anyone making the top 40 posters should be banned for a week (don't know if you're one!), supporter or not. That would probably improve the overall experience  

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Surely UKC gains indirectly from forum contributions as the forums are one of the features attracting more people to the site. The fact that UKC exists at all presumably means that advertisers think that they gain financially and their payments to UKC are worthwhile. My personal reason for supporting is that I accept the UKC claim that they will have less income during the current crisis. I do find the forums interesting and useful and would not like to lose them. I would not want the forums to lose interesting (and less interesting) contributors just because they do not agree with subscribing; for myself I intend to stop subscribing when the crisis is over.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I don't steal.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

You are beginning to sound like a bit of a sanctimonious prick.

In one of the original threads about this subscription model, I recall that one of the fears expressed was that those who did pay would end up having a go at those who didn't, and that we would end up in a two tier world here. It seems like that is happening.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

 Well it's not much to ask but are you implying that there's some sort of duty to pay towards what is, ultimately, a business? 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It's a machine built to protect itself and the business it supports. Fair enough really.

Jk

In reply to all:

There isn't a duty or any pressure to donate. If you want to contribute then please do so, if you don't, or can't, then please continue to visit the site to contribute and enjoy it.

Alan

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I just wanted the sticker.

And to be able to do this: 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Maybe we should subscribe pro-rata w r t posting freuencey, I mean - those people in the top 40 - it's obviously more important to them ?!

In reply to Siward:

Interesting idea. Because the next most prolific 20 are more interesting or because a quieter site would suit you better?

Jk

In reply to jkarran:

Just to mix it up a bit, reduce the dominance of the old windbags

In reply to Siward:

Embarrassingly I think I am number 1 at the moment! Which is a bit skewed as I don’t think posts in The Pub are counted, and I don’t post in there all that much, whereas others do quite a lot. Years ago I used to take two weeks off if I ever became Number 1 poster but that was back when 300 posts per week just about got you into the Top 20 😃

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

I think you'll find that websites benefit from regular forum use as it increases their exposure on Google listings. This in turn can help the advertisers, thus enabling UKC to sell more advertising space. Individually these benefits will be small, but collectively....

I too considered subscribing, but like you have earned nothing since lockdown and there is much uncertainty as to when that may change, so don't feel able to.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I value UKC and have chosen to contribute, but I'm not paying £150 a year.

In reply to The New NickB:

Yeah, it is actually 5.4p/day for basic Supporter status or 13.7p/day for the SupporterPlus Annual (or 16.7p/day Monthly) which includes the App and Rockfax guidebook discount.

Alan

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I support UKC by being a crag moderator. I used to do Leonidio, which took up a lot of my time for a couple of years. I still look after a couple of others. Is that good enough?

In reply to Andy Chubb:

It's not for me to say what is and isn't. But I know I greatly appreciate the work that crag moderators do, and I'm sure Alan and others at UKC do too. And yeah, I'd say if you do something like moderate crags (esp a big one like Leonidio, which obvs is multiple crags) then you're already a UKC supporter, supporting in time not money but that's equally valuable

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Paul, as per my first post on this thread, I am sure you don't intend it but you need to understand that a lot of your dislikes almost certainly come from people who interpret some of your phrasing as being incredibly patronising. Sometimes you need to step back and read what you've written with as "neutral" a mind as you can muster. 
I am often guilty of similar, but I don't whinge about dislikes. 

In reply to The New NickB:

Rhetoric may be one of Paul's strong points; arithmetic certainly isn't. 

I think he meant 40p per week, not per day (for the lowest £20 per year rate)

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I appreciate it's not for you to say - I shouldn't have directed the question to you. It's really something for Alan to consider.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

This thread is beginning to remind me of a politician caught with their pants down starting a distracting fire elsewhere.

It would be really bad news if UKC had to cut staff due to a massive medium term loss in their advertising revenue and site users are adult enough to get this. Plus a loss to all climbers as the logbook system is the only comprehensive route database in the UK.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Hi Alan,

Is there a way that you can add an Extra Special Supporter option, just for Paul Sagar? Make it 10 times the price and have a huge golden badge so he can shit on the rest of us from an even greater height?

In reply to Andy Chubb:

We appreciate people who help with crag moderating and we appreciate people who become Supporters. We are certainly not going to link the two. 

Alan

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I see where you are coming from. But it’s a hard line to walk. I chose not to interpret Andy’s comment to me as an aggressive provocation. So I tried to de-escalate by being overly nice. Then I get accused of being patronising. 

I take your point that sometimes my rhetoric is inflammatory (and to be fair, sometimes I’m doing it on purpose). But it takes two to tango and I guess I am surprised at how thin some people’s skins are. Was my phrasing “allow me to explain” really so offensive that it offended all and sundry? (Alternatively, maybe people picked up on that and interpreted it as patronising because they also didn’t like the substance of what I was saying? - shooting the messenger is one way to ignore the message). 

Fair enough i shouldn’t whine about downvotes (although what actually bothers me is downvotes with no explanation - I don’t care about people thinking i’m wrong just in and of itself, but I do want to know why they think I’m wrong, which I get from you and a few others, but not plenty of people just hit the thumbs down and I guess the lack of explanation is really what irks me.  But actually this doesn’t change anything. You’re right, I shouldn’t whine about downvotes.)

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I am afraid you rather alienated me by the reasons you gave when I offered to send you a cheque for £75 as, living abroad, I couldn't be bothered under current circs with the procedures proposed. They might explain to readers certain details;s of your business model that may not be clear to all, 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Maybe Alan should start charging for dislikes? Sort the funding, make people consider a bit more before hitting dislike and perhaps dissuade the mods from being quite so trigger happy with banning money generating posters (anyone else miss the likes of BIgGer, even a little bit?) Win, win, win.🙂

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes, I guessed that, but I couldn't resist a comment.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

In my defence I didn’t come up with the 40p thing, I just saw it upthread and mindlessly repeated it. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Nobody upthread mentioned 40p a day. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

This is the Central Scrutinizer...
Paul has just worked himself into an imaginary frenzy
During the fade-out of his imaginary conversation...
He begins to feel depressed now
He knows the end is near
He has realized at last, that imaginary sums of money
And imaginary dislikes
Exist only in the imagination of the imaginer!
And... ultimately, who gives a f*ck anyway?
So... So...
Excuse me... Ha ha ha!
Mm-mh... So... Ha ha ha... Ha ha ha!
...Who gives a f*ck anyway?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Having done a quick search...you're right. Or at least if somebody did mention it, they've deleted it. If not...I must be going totally barmy because I could have sworn I was just repeating somebody else.

Weird.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

You had to do a search to check that I was right ?! Rude! 😀😀😀

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Less about you, more about me. Clearly losing the plot...

In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

This tickled me, I have to admit.

In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

It's all perception mate.