That Piece Of Crap Hewlett-Packard Ad

[Michael]

was asking about that, no answer,
if its true, i will unblock adds here.
but need to be sure, i want to support phoronix in any way.

Yep it's true - largely paid for impressions,

[crazycheese]

You're completely ignoring my arguments. I'm talking about adfree accessibility for everyone for all content that's relevant immediately. You know, accessibility regardless of browser or operating system. For content that has a loose timely relevance, there would be a timely buffer to actually justify the premium programme, which is right now a pointless excuse to not use the word 'donation' (most premium users here even admit they still use adblock because it's the most comfortable).

If this means that I strongly disagree with your model for phoronix, then yes.
Your arguments are "payed subscription or week latency for most articles" vs "payed subscription without ads or direct access with ads". Do I miss something?

Websites using this model block access for one week not because the information will lose its significance (I read lwn articles, and they are still relevant after a week; same for crunchyroll videos), but because there are enough people who care enough to get the content right away to pay.

Wrong. And wrong ripping of my argument out of the sentence and misplacement for counter-argument.
My original argument was "Ever thought why they block access for 1 week? Because the information will loose its significance, means you either go premium or go elsewhere - you hear about it on other site anyway."
Which means author has gathered enough income from premium subscribers that he releases article in public domain or with copyleft license or with free to view license.
This means article has lost its significance - not the significance of application of methods, but social significance. It become already well known, already discussed in paying circles, information.

I have no problem if Michael removes all Ads on articles that are older than one week, as some sort of databank, and keeps Ads on newer ones.
But even then, each time someone browses databank, he will generate some revenue. Again, if you don't support this site this way, you have Adblock.

Ads are a sick culture. By 'supporting' the sites according to your way, you support a sick culture.

You go into philosophy now, out of original question on which way is it better to support this site for non-premium people.
If correctly applied, ads do the job, they advertise. The correct application is to advertise something that may be of use for the person, without getting in the way. 99,95% Ads are misplaced or simply stupid - thats why there is Adblock. To ban stupid Ads.
If however a person clicks on the Ad, because it really interests him (out of the sudden, 0,05% case), means company advertising product, producing product and site owner get profit. This is a way to fund them.
I don't see better way to fund this site without direct investment (donation, support, subscription, payment etc).

By using ad block, you diminish this distorted approach and maybe even cause some site owners to rethink their model.

Two things depending on chaos factor:
- either the owner will find ways to punish you for your "stupid" behavior against his "correct" policy
- or the owner will go bankrupt with his "stupid" policy and shut down (which you call rethinking) giving up to your "correct" behavior.
The behavior of side which looses is always "stupid", the winner's policy is always "correct".
Any aggression towards any behavioral model always meets counteraggression, this is subconscious.**
The pressure in conflict will go high(which means you both will invest/loose your energy here) till either one of sides give up(for whichever reason) or the point of conflict is lost.
Which means, unless you find different supportive model for case of non-paying viewers, you either use it as it is; or go fight against Michael with either his(giving up the project) or your(giving up to increasing countermeasures) bankruptcy as result.

If you find different approach that is realistic and Michael agrees, his "behavior" will be modified and point of conflict will be lost.
If you find different approach that seems unrealistic to Michael the conflict will carry on.
If you find different approach that seems unrealistic to Michael, but other site implements it, you will switch to another site(because "pressure" there is lower) resulting in point(vector) of conflict being lost.

Ok, but now exactly the reason why you cannot "go search for different approach" when you apply YOUR method.
** Those who speak loud, can not hear.

Wikipedia has proven that projects can work on donations and work well. There's the lwn model, and there are others, too.

Good idea, but this means, Michael's approach should be modified.
This means redesign of the project. It won't be phoronix@"now".
Wikipedia is community driven, resulting in a lot of wrong information which is fought with by using reliable sources or conflicting AND reliable sources(controversy).
On the contrast, Michael does this by himself - searches for reliable sources and creates articles.
Because he is doing it professionally full time(I guess), the speed is higher compared to community approach(I don't exclude case when he chooses co-authors).

And then, there is no reason for doing everything with community approach. Community approach works best when both sides profit by their actions at same time.
Michael won't profit from your actions making another article here, because he wants to profit from action of Oktoberfest(by spending money there). Means, if you want to "keep" him as person in charge for the site, you have to donate, not articles(from you profit), but currency(what is accepted at Oktoberfest). Unless Michael reaches an agreement - one good Linux article for one good grog of beer at Oktoberfest (barter exchange), then it will be working too to some point.

Donations are similar form of subscription, both mean financial support. But what about those, who are unable to donate yet? Allow only direct access to wikipedia for those who pay, other get outdated information?
Wikipedia becomes a lot of donations, thanks to its sheer size and resulting impact. It gained size, because it the content was created by others for others - for free. Would you like to write thorough article for me, because you feel like sharing information? Would you like to undergo surgery, because surgeon feels like its good to do it for free? Sure you would. But surgeon will only operate people all day and be dependent on their give back to make living. He does not profit from it at all, unless barter exchange starts again.

There's no reason a good compromise between content distribution and income could not be reached here, as well.

Ad is similar form of "compromise". Its just that you don't like this model and want your model, which is a lot worse, for example for me. Why? Because I will be forced to subscribe, unless I want information a week later. Skipping all conflicts, which rise when several companies get money by imposing such access limits(which results in declaring property and starting protecting it - suing, patenting etc), you approach is less beneficial for me because my machine hangs just 15 seconds loading Ads here, not a week.

Or what do you mean with "make the premium programme actually worth something"? Making non-paying approach even more restricted and this way elevating paying approach without actually improving it itself? Make your car look better by demolishing other cars so other people walk on foot and gaze upon your car?

[crazycheese]

I mean, I had nice offer to you. Assume you have no premium subscription - do not visit this site for a week, then visit it with adblocker.
Answer simple question please: will Michael gain ANYTHING monetary when you do that?











Spoiler:
Except for slapping your psyche into obedience of joining premium, he will not get anything.
But once you join... "ah, relaxation. I did right thing, I'm not punished anymore."

[susikala]

If this means that I strongly disagree with your model for phoronix, then yes.
Your arguments are "payed subscription or week latency for most articles" vs "payed subscription without ads or direct access with ads". Do I miss something?

Indeed, you're missing something. The model was 'paid subscription or waiting a week for the benchmark articles'. I just counted the articles that currently appear linked on the first page. Out of 46 articles, 8 are benchmark articles. Even if we're large on this, this is still every fifth article and hardly 'most articles'. I suggest you first read before you twist things out of context.

Wrong. And wrong ripping of my argument out of the sentence and misplacement for counter-argument.
My original argument was "Ever thought why they block access for 1 week? Because the information will loose its significance, means you either go premium or go elsewhere - you hear about it on other site anyway."
Which means author has gathered enough income from premium subscribers that he releases article in public domain or with copyleft license or with free to view license.
This means article has lost its significance - not the significance of application of methods, but social significance. It become already well known, already discussed in paying circles, information.

That's just you interpreting reality. Fact is those sites release the articles after a week regardless of much profit they made that week. It's not like they extend the premium period if an article is gathering a lot of attention and 'earning' them money. No, it's just a general policy.

Now, I challenged you to write exactly in what respect would benchmark articles lose their significance after a week, all you did was throw very general vague words into your post. The results themselves are still relevant after a week. The article is _not_ well known, because of the premium factor, so it's largely a novelty for many people even after a week, and it's still socially relevant -- there are a lot more people to join the discussion and contribute their sides of things. The fact it's later doesn't say it's less relevant. The results are global.

I have no problem if Michael removes all Ads on articles that are older than one week, as some sort of databank, and keeps Ads on newer ones.
But even then, each time someone browses databank, he will generate some revenue. Again, if you don't support this site this way, you have Adblock.

I don't get the point here, and I don't think there's a point to get, to be honest.

You go into philosophy now, out of original question on which way is it better to support this site for non-premium people.
If correctly applied, ads do the job, they advertise. The correct application is to advertise something that may be of use for the person, without getting in the way. 99,95% Ads are misplaced or simply stupid - thats why there is Adblock. To ban stupid Ads.
If however a person clicks on the Ad, because it really interests him (out of the sudden, 0,05% case), means company advertising product, producing product and site owner get profit. This is a way to fund them.
I don't see better way to fund this site without direct investment (donation, support, subscription, payment etc).

There's no such thing as a non stupid ad. One of the main reasons the West is so over indebted right now and basically living on time and money that doesn't exist is because of such sick mechanisms in our society. Ads should be banned. People are too weak to resist them, and end up spending more money than they have. Then they have to pay interest, and combined with new capitalist terror, they never leave of territory of owing money. And at some point, so many people are in this state that no one can pay their debts anymore.

Two things depending on chaos factor:
- either the owner will find ways to punish you for your "stupid" behavior against his "correct" policy
- or the owner will go bankrupt with his "stupid" policy and shut down (which you call rethinking) giving up to your "correct" behavior.
The behavior of side which looses is always "stupid", the winner's policy is always "correct".
Any aggression towards any behavioral model always meets counteraggression, this is subconscious.**
The pressure in conflict will go high(which means you both will invest/loose your energy here) till either one of sides give up(for whichever reason) or the point of conflict is lost.
Which means, unless you find different supportive model for case of non-paying viewers, you either use it as it is; or go fight against Michael with either his(giving up the project) or your(giving up to increasing countermeasures) bankruptcy as result.

I reiterate what I said earlier. The user is always right, the site owner should always cater to the best interest of his users. Sites depend on users, not vice versa. If Michael gets too obnoxious with his anti adblock approach and actually bans adblock, a large portion of the users here will leave. Maybe someone will create an alternative, such a thing has been known to happen in the FOSS world, and things will be harmonized once again. If Facebook continues to suck so horribly as it did from day one, more and more people will leave to something better -- say Google+. If Google+ begins to suck, a better alternative will soon emerge. Especially on the Net, there's always an alternative. So here, the user is always right. Face it.

Ad is similar form of "compromise". Its just that you don't like this model and want your model, which is a lot worse, for example for me. Why? Because I will be forced to subscribe, unless I want information a week later. Skipping all conflicts, which rise when several companies get money by imposing such access limits(which results in declaring property and starting protecting it - suing, patenting etc), you approach is less beneficial for me because my machine hangs just 15 seconds loading Ads here, not a week.

Or what do you mean with "make the premium programme actually worth something"? Making non-paying approach even more restricted and this way elevating paying approach without actually improving it itself? Make your car look better by demolishing other cars so other people walk on foot and gaze upon your car?

Ads are not a compromise, as I said. If I want, for whatever reason, to browse phoronix with a browser that has no ad blocker, I will forced to see ads, just as you will 'forced' to subscribe. Even if I do use a browser with an ad blocker, I'm constantly exposed here to a hateful tirade against adblock users, which reeks of pure greed. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty surprised this website's owner called a significant portion of his users 'scum' and got away with it so easily.

So basically, in my model, some users will have to exercise patience (namely those like you, who care for the benchmark articles but don't think they are worth $10 every three months, which is really a nearly ridiculous sum of money), but _everyone_ will enjoy a sterile site.

[crazycheese]

Indeed, you're missing something. The model was 'paid subscription or waiting a week for the benchmark articles'. I just counted the articles that currently appear linked on the first page. Out of 46 articles, 8 are benchmark articles. Even if we're large on this, this is still every fifth article and hardly 'most articles'. I suggest you first read before you twist things out of context.

You need to discuss with Michael if jailing benchmarking articles will payoff the ad-aided approach.

That's just you interpreting reality. Fact is those sites release the articles after a week regardless of much profit they made that week. It's not like they extend the premium period if an article is gathering a lot of attention and 'earning' them money. No, it's just a general policy.

Yes, it is policy, based on... Yes, calculations. There are no dynamic calculations(that would lock the articles for varied period based on popularity) because its hard to implement, or no one implemented it yet. Thats why they calculated average mean and set policy to keep it consistent.

Now, I challenged you to write exactly in what respect would benchmark articles lose their significance after a week, all you did was throw very general vague words into your post. The results themselves are still relevant after a week. The article is _not_ well known, because of the premium factor, so it's largely a novelty for many people even after a week, and it's still socially relevant -- there are a lot more people to join the discussion and contribute their sides of things. The fact it's later doesn't say it's less relevant. The results are global.

Results are interesting mainly about graphic drivers and mainly about graphic opensource graphics driver, where discussion sometimes count. Additionally the results are from his own hardware - openbenchmarking is open to anyone to see tests from crowd at any time, so he spends the time and expects refund. You goal is to make as much people go premium as possible, that is why you propose lockout. But the ad-supported free version is also running. For me as free member, its better to watch ads, than to wait one week.

There's no such thing as a non stupid ad. One of the main reasons the West is so over indebted right now and basically living on time and money that doesn't exist is because of such sick mechanisms in our society. Ads should be banned. People are too weak to resist them, and end up spending more money than they have. Then they have to pay interest, and combined with new capitalist terror, they never leave of territory of owing money. And at some point, so many people are in this state that no one can pay their debts anymore.

It depends on grade of marketing. For consumer, marketing is defined as non-brainer viral ad. For technical people it won't work, so the marketing is to send hardware sample for review(as example). How is this sick?

I reiterate what I said earlier. The user is always right, the site owner should always cater to the best interest of his users. Sites depend on users, not vice versa. If Michael gets too obnoxious with his anti adblock approach and actually bans adblock, a large portion of the users here will leave. Maybe someone will create an alternative, such a thing has been known to happen in the FOSS world, and things will be harmonized once again. If Facebook continues to suck so horribly as it did from day one, more and more people will leave to something better -- say Google+. If Google+ begins to suck, a better alternative will soon emerge. Especially on the Net, there's always an alternative. So here, the user is always right. Face it.

You are missing 1/2 of formula. The user is always right, if it works out. I want Koenigsegg for xmas.

Ads are not a compromise, as I said. If I want, for whatever reason, to browse phoronix with a browser that has no ad blocker, I will forced to see ads, just as you will 'forced' to subscribe. Even if I do use a browser with an ad blocker, I'm constantly exposed here to a hateful tirade against adblock users, which reeks of pure greed. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty surprised this website's owner called a significant portion of his users 'scum' and got away with it so easily.

Get premium, you won't have to wait one week. Or use adblock, because if you look at article now or in a week without ads, Michael will not get richer. But what you do with your formula is to punish more viewers into premium by imposing limitations.
If you compare it with software, it would be either software which shows ads when you use it; or software that has trial period. Granted both variants are messy(ads may spionage, trial installs rootkit watch), watching ads and using near full functionality is better for me.
I think you are digging on wrong end, if its about how to "improve premium".

So basically, in my model, some users will have to exercise patience (namely those like you, who care for the benchmark articles but don't think they are worth $10 every three months, which is really a nearly ridiculous sum of money), but _everyone_ will enjoy a sterile site.

Yes, supercar costs 100$ per hour too. Why don't you drive supercar whole year? By the way, are you premium user?