... Where you pay a little every month and get something for it, or even don't pay but become a "member" and get something for that?
At the moment there are no plans for such a thing, but there is a survey for you to offer your opinion. Click here to take the survey.
More like this
When people raise questions about the mysterious 1997 survey, Lott's standard line of defence is:
Tim Lambert's questions:
[Note: This was an attachement to a Nov 17 posting to firearmsregprof on Nov 17. My comments are in italics like this. TL]
In a report on a climate change seminar, Bernd Ströher and Benny Peiser write:
IMO - pay sites don't workout. Someone else will give you the same content for free (there's obviously unique cotnent on a blog, but blogs are dime-a-dozen). It seems like this is a natural cycle of the interwebz - we get addicted to some online resource and then they try to charge a premium for some added content. I never buy into it. I'm looking at you, Hulu (and Pandora). I feel ad-based revenue is really the only way to profit from a site. I currently pay squat for any online site (well almost, I have Sirius radio which I pay for that comes with the online version, as well as a Zune pass that allows me to stream music through that, but I did not purchase either for the web items). My ¢2
No.
"If ScienceBlogs were to launch a FREE Premium Membership..."
I wonder if that question was a test to see if I was paying attention. I still answered Not Sure.
"Scienceblogs Premium Services" sounds like the adult section to me. "These tits have a Ph.D." sort of thing.
The wording on the survey wasn't very clear. I would pay a small subscription fee to unfettered access to ScienceBlogs, since I find this blog-community well worth following and participating in. But I hate "membership" kinds of things, and most of the extra "services" that were listed as possibly being included in such a premium deal would be of no interest to me.
So... based on current wording? No. Which is not to say that I don't value the SB content, and wouldn't ever pay a small amount for it. I just don't need all the other stuff that apparently would go along with a "Premium Service."
I would like experiments. I.e. what's going on, more of it, and more chances with different stuff.
After that it gets fuzzy, smile.
Hell no.
I agree with Jennifer. I don't really need any of those so-called premium services.
It sounds like it's trying to be more like a combination of Nature and Richard Dawkins forums with $ attached. I hardly ever log into those though I have a profile. It's just one more profile to keep track of when I just want to use my email, url and name.
I would pay $4/month, as long as 'premium services' included a pie of the month (and we're talking *quality* pie)
A: No
is this place swirling the bowl or what? That might change the answer...
Q for Sb: Why do you ask?
How many Yes answers did you get Greg?
I have no idea how many yes/no answers there are, and I'll never know. It is not my survey.
I will tell you that when I filled out my survey form, I basically said "no" to everything. I hate premium sites and i don't much like logging in to sites either, though I'll do that sometimes.
Oh. I thought with all your linux ninja stuff you were involved with the technical support for this site. Also, I always see the Scienceblogs business plan posts from here so I thought you were heavily involved with the company.
Nope, I can't even FTP shit to my own server. I'd have more control on blogspot. I get the blog post div and the left column div.