If we removed the adverts from The AnswerBank, would you be inclined to donate?

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

If we removed the adverts from The AnswerBank, would you be inclined to donate?

• No - 56 votes
• 79%
• Yes - 15 votes
• 21%

See final stats

Stats until: 17:19 Tue 03rd Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[Prudie]

I have always said I would be willing to pay a subscription but I doubt you'd get anywhere near enough even if all the regulars paid to cover the removal of advertising revenue? Maybe a reduction in ads?
I know I'm going to open a can of worms but last year when donations were first requested I would have probably done so but it coincided with a moderator upsetting me deeply on what was meant to be a light hearted thread and no-one cared, I stopped posting for nearly 4 months. I'm not paying to be treated like that.

[ToraToraTora]

It's not the ads per se it's the annoying nature of them. If they were stationary banners most of us would be ok with that. It's the in yer face, CPU munching abominations that we get inflicted on us.

[Zacs-Master]

I voted 'No' because any institution I invest in financially would mean I wanted a say in how it was run.

[Redhelen72]

I would have up till very recently quite happily pay a subscription - I have even donated but the treatment of the last few weeks of some long term members and the 'over moderation', refusal to reply to emails and when a thread goes up FAO of Ed - gets removed makes this a very unhappy place.
I don't know how you are going to fix it but something needs to be done as there won't be a business for you to manage before much longer.

[ABSpareEditor]

Zacs-Master, do you think it would be appropriate for us to govern The AnswerBank based on financial donations?

Would it be appropriate to make someone a moderator simply because they donated X amount per month?

I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.

[Lie-in King]

I haven't voted as I don't see any ads (just spaces), despite not having a blocker on (I use Firefox?). That aside, I can only donate occasionally anyway & wouldn't be able to commit to doing so regularly.

[gness]

Dave and I donated and discussed a joint regular donation. The rudeness allowed to some members of late has made us delay.
In all my years here I have never seen the moderation the way it has been for the last few weeks.
My can of worms is not unlike Prudie's but I'll keep it closed......for now.

[ABSpareEditor]

The role of the AnswerBank Editor is to maintain the quality of the website content. It is not to get involved in personal disputes between users. If a question or answer goes against Site Rules then report it to us and we will investigate the situation.

Ironically, how the members behave and communicate is the one thing we have no control over.

[choux]

I have such a lovely time here I would pay a reasonable subscription.

Time now for my meds...

PS will check back in a few months for BA :)

[Zacs-Master]

'Zacs-Master, do you think it would be appropriate for us to govern The AnswerBank based on financial donations?'

'Govern' is a bit of a heavy word. As you can see from many of the reactions thus far, the adverts aren't the main reason for the site's failure. As I've said before, you're not 'reading the room'. I think it perfectly reasonable that any person investing in your future has a say, however small, in its running.

[Zacs-Master]

'How the members behave and communicate is the one thing we have no control over.'

Apart from suspensions and bannings you mean?

[ABSpareEditor]

Of course, Zacs_Master. We can stop someone from posting entirely but we can't force someone to change their attitude or ideologies.

[gness]

I don't understand how you have no control over how members behave and communicate, SpareEd.

You can suspend and ban and good moderators who abide by your Site Rules rather than their own should be helping you to deal with the rudeness we are seeing now rather than contributing to it.

[Redhelen72]

Perhaps its the Eds attitudes that need changing?
That and some moderators!

[THECORBYLOON]

If having a say did not mean donors become Mods, might there not be a belief that they were being moderated more leniently, even if that weren't the case?

[Zacs-Master]

'Of course, Zacs_Master. We can stop someone from posting entirely but we can't force someone to change their attitude or ideologies.'

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Banning someone would prevent their posting of their attitude and ideologies. Are you alluding to people who repeatedly pop up under different names? If so, I believe several tech minded people have said this can be resolved.

[nicebloke1]

Can't for the life of me see how donating would work. No sooner someone got their knickers in a twist, they would stop donating. Reading the posts on here, it seems to have already happened.

[THECORBYLOON]

I did not mean that donors should become Mods. Even if they didn't, having a say still could lead to accusations of bias toward those donors.

[Prudie]

I think it would be totally inappropriate to let donors be mods. Money doesn't buy sense.

[andy-hughes]

It's interesting how almost any discussion eventually comes round to the Moderators , and the usual sniping and digging comes into play.

I have been a Moderator as long as they have been on this site, and I am seriously giving thought to rescinding my position.

I am fed up with the endless criticism of people who are trying to do their best to make the site run smoothly, being got at day in and day out by snipers who are often part of the problem in the first place.