D
dustbuster
Active member
Yup...OK, found it in the other thread (178596)
Seems like there will be a lot of bang for the buck paid for any subscription level...the only thing I might question: is there any subset of those features that would not cause the need for the site to go to the subscription model? Live talk, for example, was tested and found to be too heavy a load according to the letter...what else is causing the load, and is everyone sure they need those features, and therefore the need to pay for them?
It's a good thing to move the forum to a separate environment for performance, but is the hardware upgrade the driving force to the subscription model change, or are the new features driving the need to charge?
It seems that:
- feature changes are intended to drive new users to the site
- the features are causing performance issues
- to fix the performance issues someone has to pay
- some people don't want to pay and will leave
Is there an expectation that the number of people that leave will be replaced by new members drawn by the new features? If not, doesn't it follow that maybe the site should have been left alone featurewise, and therefore the performance issues would not have occurred? Seems to me that would have saved a lot of typing...
Again, it all depends what business problem is trying to be solved...performance issues on the site is not a business problem, it is a technical one. If the value of the site is the traffic to content provided by other enthusiasts, then it's a tough call to determine of those content providers (other than manufacturer reps) will actually pay to provide content...
Hoping for the best...at least, this is an interesting process to watch unfold in a forum!
Seems like there will be a lot of bang for the buck paid for any subscription level...the only thing I might question: is there any subset of those features that would not cause the need for the site to go to the subscription model? Live talk, for example, was tested and found to be too heavy a load according to the letter...what else is causing the load, and is everyone sure they need those features, and therefore the need to pay for them?
It's a good thing to move the forum to a separate environment for performance, but is the hardware upgrade the driving force to the subscription model change, or are the new features driving the need to charge?
It seems that:
- feature changes are intended to drive new users to the site
- the features are causing performance issues
- to fix the performance issues someone has to pay
- some people don't want to pay and will leave
Is there an expectation that the number of people that leave will be replaced by new members drawn by the new features? If not, doesn't it follow that maybe the site should have been left alone featurewise, and therefore the performance issues would not have occurred? Seems to me that would have saved a lot of typing...
Again, it all depends what business problem is trying to be solved...performance issues on the site is not a business problem, it is a technical one. If the value of the site is the traffic to content provided by other enthusiasts, then it's a tough call to determine of those content providers (other than manufacturer reps) will actually pay to provide content...
Hoping for the best...at least, this is an interesting process to watch unfold in a forum!