 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Good points, Stuart. What's your position on the potential commercial exploitation of this site, U?
Is co-ownership of the site something you're looking at? Subscriptions?
You're also U-sing a pseUdonym, despite running the site! You're not a secretive person by nature, are you?
No offence intended by any of the above. It's a brilliant site, and I'm very impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Thank you for your patience David. I agree these matters are important to discuss and my tardy response is not born of disrespect or a desire for secrecy but I have been a little busy these last few days 
| Quote: |
Is co-ownership of the site something you're looking at? Subscriptions?
|
Co-ownership? No. As U know, I currently own the www.snowHeads.com domain with all that entails. Although this technically makes me the owner of snowHeads, people come and go here by their own free will and if they all go - well it's just another internet ghost site 
No-one has yet expressed any desire to co-own it with me and since I'm quite happy with the situation, it's fair to say that co-ownership of the site is not something I'm looking at.
Subscription? No. We are here a)because a free access site catalysed our community into existence and b)because there was suddenly no access to that, without paying subscription. In my view, free access is a large part of snowHeads' raison d'etre. As long as snowHeads can survive and thrive as a forum, it should remain free of compulsory subscription. 
| Quote: |
What's your position on the potential commercial exploitation of this site, U?
|
Always the sensitive area this. There are costs in running snowHeads. Currently very minimal but of the onward scenarios that I've considered, a couple of very real possibilities could demand, within weeks, far greater bandwidth than we have. The costs involved are not enormous but I am personally of very limited means so they will need to be met through the site.
I see 3 prospective sources.
Voluntary donations.
This has worked well on other community-oriented sites, the snowHeads generally seem in favour of it and I have seen no argument against the principle. A system to facilitate this should be implemented soon.
Merchandising.
Currently being viewed on an 'every little helps' basis.
U won't be seeing snowHeads baseball caps being plonked on the heads of children by skimpy models in Waterloo station, but - the demand for snowHeads hats seems very healthy indeed; plans are in motion. Again this has been motivated by the discussion group and will probably end up being more about community building than fund raising.
Advertising / sponsorship.
U know what I think would be ideal? SCGB should sponsor us! They don't want to run a public forum but we do. Everyone wants the feelings of exclusion and animosity to dissipate asap and it's the obvious answer.
Meanwhile, there will be no pop-ups, no spam-mail, no cheesy corporate attention seeking. IF, we begin to see the traffic that can command advertising revenue, such adverts in their style and placement should not 'disrupt the mood of the community' here.
From what I read, I don't expect many to take issue with these ideas.
There is, however, a possibly contentious point that I would like to raise for discussion. In particular it involves the interests of people like yourself, who input great value to forums like this through well researched, quality writing.
A criticism levied at scgb over their forum was that they had wasted a valuable resource in that they should have better capitalised on the mass of data accrued by the forum. Of course, it would have caused quite a stir if they had.
But, consider this scenario, if you will.
There might be a forum within snowHeads, whose access is restricted to individuals who make a donation to snowHeads. Part of the added value of this might be threads of information drawn from the general site but with all the irrelevancies and duplicate facts removed. The original threads, the raw data as it were, would still be available to all.
Does this smack of a 'members only' forum whose value lies only in the 'stolen' efforts of contributors? Or would this be a suitable incentive/thankyou to snowHeads' supporters, made valuable by the work of sifting, editing and collating the useful bits from the sprawling mass of chatter?
| Quote: |
You're also U-sing a pseUdonym, despite running the site! You're not a secretive person by nature, are you?
|
Yes yes, I've been laughing at the irony of this ever since I wrote
| Quote: |
| We suggest (though in no way demand) that you choose a user name similar to or based on your real name |
The fact is, at the'olde place' 'u brain' was the name by which I was known to most of the community. Hence adopting my 'real' name at the point of snowHeads' inception would have had many of the negative effects associated with taking on an anonymous title. I have never hidden anything behind my pseudonym other than the fact that my mother calls me 'Graham'. The opinions I expressed as u brain over the last couple of years were my own, so in effect, I am U and U is Me.
Furthermore, as owner of the snowHeads domain, U have every opportunity to look up my personal details on line. My identity, to anyone who chooses to make the effort, is more open than anyone else's here.
| Quote: |
No offence intended by any of the above. It's a brilliant site, and I'm very impressed
|
and I am very glad to have U as part of it David.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Cheers, Graham. Your mother must be dead chuffed! We should definitely have a 'Mum Knows Best' section here, to keep the sanity.
I'm whizzing up to Glencoe for the weekend and will digest all your interesting thoughts next week. Have a good one yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
U & David, a great couple of posts for stimulating debate!
We all have our views, so let me give you mine. Having been a forum contributor (on a variety of different forums) over the past year or so, I like to think I've seen a number of "operating models" and can offer some insight into the pros and cons of each.
1) Subscription: agree with the majority that this would ultimately hurt the progression and quality of the site. As a last resort (if all other measures fail) then maybe, but not a first step.
2) Voluntary donations: I'd be happy with this, and it seems that many would be. However, I don't think we should have a separate members'/donators' forum. This site is about everyone being equal - moderators don't rule with a fist of iron, and even Sir Ian, The Reverend Goldsmith and Lord U are considered more or less peers, rather than supreme beings! Another site I used to peruse regularly had an interesting method to distinguish those who'd contributed, and more about that later.
3) Merchandising: a great point you made here U was that it should be more community-building than revenue-generating. I agree. If people want to contribute (financially) to the site then let us donate. However, to encourage wider membership (ie. advertising) and a sense of comaradery (sp?) I really do think that any merchandise should initially be available at cost (more or less). Clearly, it's up to U, but I think we'd all like to be able to buy something that acknowledges our participation and interest in the site, and if it's a hat at £5-10 then great. Over and above that, I'm sure many of us would be willing to donate additional funds to support the site, but let's keep it separate.
4) Advertising: again, the other site I used to browse had an excellent recipe for advertising. It was a slightly technical car site and smaller suppliers (of things like brake discs and exhausts, or bluetooth kits) would advertise their wares with a relatively unobtrusive banner ad on the main page and certain forum subpages. No pop-ups and it certainly didn't interfere with the browsing. The website was the BM3W forum and is similar in that all of us are (were, in my case) enthusiasts keen on supporting what we loved. Click on "Index" in the tabs at the top to go to the forum. This forum demonstrates that there are ways of raising advertising revenue (not necessarily much, though) through unobtrusive means.
5) Privileges for "donators": not sure how much I agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I'd be one of the first to contribute if U finds he needs more bandwidth/hardware/software to run the site. However, the site is about free, equal access for all. The last thing we want is a "them and us" mentality. The BM3W forum I mentioned above had an ingenious system: contributors were awarded a special logo (a blue star, IIRC) next to their name. No other benefit. Whether you contributed £2 or £500 (one member did, I think), you got the blue star. It's a bit like an honesty box - some people won't bother, but the vast majority will make it work. It sounds really daft, but the pride of knowing you've contributed to the site (and have a little gold, or whatever star to prove it - just like at being school again!) is enough for most of us.
Anyway, enough rambling, just my 2p...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! A whole post without any smileys - must be a record 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One small point masopa - £5 for a hat will get you a rubbish hat and definitely no custom logo (unless U got a v.good contact U can share). Actually, maybe up on the West Coast there U have some funky little crofter style sweat shop making mega-beanies for a pittance - please say U do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Fair point - I was really just throwing random numbers in there. Clearly, if you're keen on getting some snowheads hats made up then it's up to you to charge what you want!
My thoughts were more that the more people who buy (and wear) the hats the better, since that would encourage more people to think, "oh, I'll take a look at that site when I get home." The closer to cost the hats are, the more people are likely to want to buy them.
I reckon the whole hat thing and contribution thing are independent. But that's just my view and you're the boss!!
Sorry if you took my post the wrong way - it was supposed to be constructive and thought provoking rather than saying, "this is the way I'd do it and it's clearly the best way!" We're all really grateful of your hard work in getting this site up and running and now maintaining it. We just enjoy contributing in our own little ways!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I'm with the voluntary subscription philosophy. Call me sad, but I always felt slightly fraudualent on the SCGB site knowing that other people had paid for it.
On the ownership front, is it possible for U brain to agree to copy the archive somewhere that it can't be unilaterally deleted from, once a week or so. This would be in the principle of volutary collaboration, the same way that donations are made. We've proved in the last three weeks how easy it is to restart something, and should U brain fall under a piste basher we would soon be up and running again in his memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
The fact we are all using this site is because we were upset at the way SCGB brought in members only contributions/viewings. Making a members only section leads to a them and us atmosphere, which we do not want. Therefore, this site should remain free. I am happy to donate funds to its ongoing up keep as are many others, however, a way of funding the site might be by charging a nominal fee of, say £1 per session, to access any archived threads as a point of reference.
Ownership should remain in U brains control. We all contibute here voluntarily and if he makes any money out of it, then good for him for putting in the time and effort of setting up and maintaining the site - that's business. If you don't like the idea of someone else making money out of your work then don't contribute. It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve - I think a number of us in your position did eventually sign up to SCGB because we were using the forum frequently - then they chucked all our friends out!
I think I'd prefer to see how straight volunteer funding went before trying a 'members only' zone. I don't like the idea of per session charging but would happily donate sums of order £50 per year as long as I was using the forum regularly. If the member only zone is anything like the Ski Club members only I'd stay in public area!
I noticed the phpBB website had some really subtle GoogleAd based advertising - not sure what sort of cash this brings in...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Great idea Cathy! There's a company who do boarders clothing - can't remember the name, but it's a name of one of their tricks as well - something to do with fish. This small company gives away stickers (with its logo on) with all its products and you find the stickers in EVERY resort - in the most surprising places, as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Think it's called Stinky Fish, but I might be wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Advertising/sponsorships, There must be people who use this site who own buisnesses. U let me be the first to sponsor the log in page on the site, i'll bid £100.00 to sponsor it in march all i ask is my buisness name, type of buisnes, telephone number and web site to be shown for a month.
We all know how adverts are annoying so offering the log in page for adverts is a good way to bring in revenue and it wont get in the way of the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
There are also quite a few people who promote their chalets/apartments in the threads, which is fine. I'd like to see them all in the chalets/apartments thread though, for which the owners have to pay a small sum. Just like classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
For the record, I quite like the idea of some form of recognition for those that make voluntary donations.
And, if snowheads do indeed come up with some form of headware, perhaps a small charge could be added to the cost as a contribution to ongoing costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think it's fine having a separate section for chalets/apartments to rent & don't see any reason why they should pay to be in there. If I don't want to look at them I won't go in that section & if I want to rent they may well be cheaper than a package I'd get elsewhere. What I do object to is people with an appartment giving advice to others on the basis of where their property is located 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Cathy - that's my point. If the lucky property owners have their own niche we will be able to read their posts and understand that the information they may give could be coloured by their potential gain. Or maybe just coloured by their love of a resort which they now live in (hey, let's give them the benefit of the doubt...).
If you're materially gaining from a website (I don't mean you personally Cathy), I don't see why you would object to a small charge. It's no big deal, but if U needs a few hundred quid a year (?) from somewhere, that would seem like one area to look at.
I like the idea of a Snowheads discount though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't that have been Mornington Crescent, not Mornington Street?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
dualhead, So you've revived a 9 year old thread to impart the breathtaking information that the owner of the Snowheads site is Graham Macmahon and he lives in London. Gosh, thanks, not many people on here know that..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Alastair Pink, under a new name, i had this one down as potential tinned "meat" product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who owns and runs and maintains the server/s.
Where does any money from subscriptions/advertising go.
I guess that is who owns Snowheads or at least the intellectual rights and we all know who that is. And good luck to them, is what I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Speaking of advertising, that stupid dog tag advert closing down button moves so you can't help but give them click-throughs.
Bloody annoying (and slightly underhand)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Wow! Is that the biggest bump in SnowHeads history??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
homers double, Pay a sub and you won't even see the ads!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Michael B wrote: |
I don't care who owns it, or profits by any posts I make, although it is a subject that needs to be addressed. I like being able to swap knowledge with others. I do agree that it is a valuable resource and I think that the SCGB should have compiled all the hard facts into either a book or an on-line resource that could have been accessed by all. This site should do the same in the not too distant future. It would be a great asset to be able to search opinions (because that is what most of the posts are), by a subject and get a return with threads regarding that subject. The threads that drop off the site are a lost resource.
If this becomes a club, in the true sense I will join just to show support. |
Excellent points by Michael B, all those years ago.
| dualhead wrote: |
Hi, David Goldsmith
The owner of the site is Graham macmahon and the email id is snowhead@fos.krass.com and the address is 18 mornington street, london and the contact number is +44.2073883708.And i have found some valuable information about the site by doing whois search provided by the site http://www.whoisxy.com/ . |
Thanks, dualhead. I have, in fact, met Graham numerous times since posting those points in Feb 2004 and we've discussed all aspects of that opening posting.
Facebook launched (originally as thefacebook.com) on 4 February 2004. snowHeads launched on 5 February 2004. In retrospect, much can be made of the conjunction of those two historical events, and their relative consequences/implications!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Facebook launched (originally as thefacebook.com) on 4 February 2004. snowHeads launched on 5 February 2004. In retrospect, much can be made of the conjunction of those two historical events, and their relative consequences/implications! |
So when is the film being made about snowheads?
I would expect it to be far more fun
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I think it might be nice to edit your post to remove the personal details that you've quoted. Y'know.... just a respectful and a nice thing to do. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Despite their head-start, I like to think of snowHeads as far more successful than Facebook.
For example, if you compare the number of ski-days Mr. Zuckerburg had this season to the number that I enjoyed, it's clear to see who's coming out on top.
Come to think of it, if you compare the average number of ski-days enjoyed by facebook users to the average number enjoyed by snowHeads, I think we're all onto a much better thing here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Who owns it? Who should own it? Who should control it? Should it contain advertising? Should it be sponsored? Should it be available for sale? Should it one day fall into the hands of an internet baron? Does it matter? |
It should be owned by Boko Haram in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Facebook launched (originally as thefacebook.com) on 4 February 2004. snowHeads launched on 5 February 2004. In retrospect, much can be made of the conjunction of those two historical events, and their relative consequences/implications! |
In retrospect, the title of this thread should be changed to "Who owns facebook? Who SHOULD own facebook?".
And the answer is...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
