Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
LWN status - a followup
The LWN status update posted
two weeks ago generated quite a bit of feedback. We have also received
quite a bit of mail; it has all been read, though we have not had a chance
to respond to every message. Once again, we offer our thanks to all of
you, who clearly care about keeping LWN going and making it better.
One of the most commonly-suggested ideas was a "send a link" feature for subscribers. Using this feature, a subscriber could generate a link which would enable a non-subscriber to access an article which is still behind the subscription gate. The idea would be to let our readers spread limited access to subscription content, thus helping to hook more readers. We will probably implement this idea, though the specific shape of it remains to be worked out. Stay tuned. Other promotional approaches are being looked at and tried out. Ad campaigns run on That Big Search Engine have been disappointing so far, though we have not yet given up on that approach. What seems more effective is targeted trial subscription offers; a trial offer sent to the GnuCash and KMyMoney lists (so they could read the recent Grumpy Editor article) got quite a few takers. LWN does not need a reputation for spamming developer lists, however, so much care will have to be taken with this approach. The idea of extending the subscription period did not inspire a great many replies, one way or another. We may try a modest extension (to two weeks, perhaps), maybe in conjunction with the "send a link" feature. A few people have asked for a higher-priced subscription option or the ability to simply make donations. We may eventually add the higher level, though we expect that the uptake - which would be necessarily less than we see now for the "project leader" level - would be relatively small. There will not be a donation option added, however. Those of you who were with us when we first decided to try subscriptions will remember that we went through a major hassle with our credit card merchant bank. Donations are a red flag which, it seems, creates major anxiety in merchant bank risk management departments. Our current bank has proved to be far more rational than the one we had back then, but the ability to accept credit cards is our lifeline, and we cannot do things (like accepting donations) which put it at risk. We do have a couple of options for anybody who would like to send more money LWN's way: (1) buy a gift certificate for a friend, or (2) buy a text ad promoting your favorite free software project. A few users have suggested that the site could use a redesign to give it a more professional look. No doubt that is true, and a site makeover has been on the "to do" list for some time. Any such redesign, when it happens, will preserve the core philosophy of the current site: LWN is about high-quality text without a lot of distracting decorative material. So there is no need to worry that we'll be going to a frame-based, flash-encrusted, image-heavy presentation in the future. Thanks to all of you for your support and feedback. LWN has truly been blessed with the best group of readers we could ever have hoped for. (Log in to post comments)
The site design Posted Oct 13, 2005 2:16 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] I like the current site design as is--professional and research-material-like looking. Anything cuter would be negative.
The site design Posted Oct 13, 2005 3:59 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] I second that. I like the clean and uncluttered look. It's the text (and occasional images accompanying articles) that's important.
Underscores Posted Oct 13, 2005 7:57 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] There's only one change I'd like to see in the site design: lose the heavy title underscores. The titles are bold, so they don't need underscoring to set them off. Meanwhile, underscoring makes letters with descenders (not to mention actual underscores!), as in the "qfp_t" Kernel story this week, harder to identify.As for general usefulness improvements, replacing the search apparatus with something Googly is overdue. An automatically generated list of links to apparently-related past stories is a useful feature of other sites. (It might also, uniquely, link to posted comments from selected members who have proven particularly informative.)
Underscores Posted Oct 13, 2005 18:51 UTC (Thu) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link] As for general usefulness improvements, replacing the search apparatus with something Googly is overdue. An automatically generated list of links to apparently-related past stories is a useful feature of other sites. (It might also, uniquely, link to posted comments from selected members who have proven particularly informative.) I can't comment on the search apparatus as I've never had need to use it, but do realize that if you're going to include comments from particularly informative members, you're going to have to rank members somehow. I highly doubt anyone wants to turn LWN into a /. where comments are made on the basis of how well they will be moderated up and not actually on how informative they are.
Underscores Posted Oct 17, 2005 14:59 UTC (Mon) by Zenith (subscriber, #24899) [Link] I usually just throw a "site:lwn.net <search>" after google to find what I want. Works wonder ;-)
The site design Posted Oct 13, 2005 12:13 UTC (Thu) by a9db0 (subscriber, #2181) [Link] I'll third that. The design is clean, easy to navigate, and flexible. It works.
While change is often good, change for the sake of change rarely is.
Dave
The site design Posted Oct 13, 2005 15:48 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Perhaps the comments on site design have to do with the unsubscribed view?I have little complaint with the subscribed view (the underline thing mentioned by someone could be an issue, but honestly, I hadn't noticed it until he mentioned it), likely because either with login or as a subscriber (I'm not sure /what/ the unsubscribed logged in view offers at this point), I can and do use the customization features. However, the front page as presented to a non-subscriber is rather less impressive, IMO. I'm not a web designer and won't attempt to say what's wrong with it nor how to fix it, except that it's too "busy" looking, and not laid out well at all, IMO. I've more than once thought, after my cookie expired and I had to login again, how "ugly" the default front page is, as seen by a non-subscriber. In a sense, I've been glad that I found LWN before the subscription business started, and got a favorable enough impression then to subscribe, because in all honesty, I can't say that the front page as presented to a non-subscriber, at this point, is something that would at all encourage /me/ to return often enough to decide I needed a subscription. As I said, I'm not a web designer and therefore don't really have any good ideas for changing it, that would still clearly present the different content available for free and to subscribers, but perhaps someone that /is/ a web designer could offer their services to LWN either as a donation or in return for a year or two's membership, to do /something/ about that default non-subscriber front page. Being it's what non-subscribers that /could/ become subscribers see as their main interface to LWN, it /might/ have something to do with the fact that LWN seems to be keeping current subscribers, but not getting many new ones, so changing it might change that fact, getting us a few new subscribers, given only non-subscribers normally see it. Other than that, yes, I agree with the other comments so far, there's little enough that needs changing, that I'm afraid any changes might make things /worse/ rather than better. It's not broken so don't fix it! =8^) In fact, my biggest complaint isn't about the format, but that LWN has yet to open source its engine, tho it has been promised for quite some time! Duncan
The site design Posted Oct 13, 2005 20:07 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] > However, the front page as presented to a non-subscriber is rather less> impressive, IMO. I'm not a web designer and won't attempt to say what's > wrong with it nor how to fix it, except that it's too "busy" looking, > and not laid out well at all, IMO Agree on this...
The site design Posted Oct 14, 2005 20:07 UTC (Fri) by Lorenzo (guest, #260) [Link] A little redesign would be fine.Dress it up a little bit. Go for it.
But ... Please don't make it cluttered, e.g. www.yahoo.com (wayyy too many graphics!, too many colors, just too busy to parse. ).
Please! No Flash! ... ever.
JMHO
Thanks!
The site design Posted Oct 22, 2005 8:50 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] i'd love a look like this one:http://www.canllaith.org/svn-features/17-08-05.html plain text with just a little makeup and nice pictures.
Mail a link Posted Oct 13, 2005 2:23 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] If you implement the mail a link idea, might I suggest being as liberal as possible for starters? You can always tighten it afterwards, but it would be interesting to see what kind of usage it gets if unrestricted. And in the beginning, I don't see how it could hurt subscriptions other than possibly a few peeved subscribers choosing not to renew because their restricted club is too easy for strangers to get in. Long term is different, but you can always tighten the restrictions as time goes by.
Mail a link Posted Oct 13, 2005 14:02 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] I the mean time, for those who don't know it yet: press on the "comments" link below the article. Then you get to a page of the article alone. You can send that URL as a link. But better strip out the "#Commonts" from the end of it.
Similarly, to send a link to a reply, use the link to reply to the comment, and strip out "/comment".
I figure we should thank LWN programmers for providing a site with a sane URL structure.
Mail a link Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:17 UTC (Thu) by pkalinsky (guest, #16016) [Link] It is actually the Quixote developers we should thank for the url structure. An object publishing pythonic framework that is.
Mail a short subscription Posted Oct 14, 2005 10:32 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] A "mail a link" feature would be a good place to add a button to transfer to the recipient some of the sender's subscription time, allowing access not just to the article, but to the entire site for, say, three days. Correspondingly, the sender's subscription renewal would come up three days earlier if the link is used. Subscribers might be allowed a small fund of free sponsorship, to help prime the pump.
This would be an opportunity to experiment with the infrastructure needed for a similar feature: allowing subscribers to transfer subscription time to the accounts of authors of particularly useful comments. Slashdot-like moderation frenzy would be avoided by (a) the real monetary cost to the donor, and (b) limiting visible indications that the transfers had occurred. Thus, only the donor, the recipient, and LWN need know. Those getting the most donations would be natural candidates to be tapped as official editors, and might anyway receive extra privileges, such as the right to re-edit their own postings. Finally, contributors where dollars are scarce could earn their subscriptions without negotiating the maze of international currency transfer.
The next tie-in would be to allow subscription time to be traded for LWN-themed swag. That would simplify the legal and financial apparatus attached to moving the stuff, because people would *only* ever buy subscription time. There might be certain particularly identifiable items (e.g., the official LWN hard-shell laptop case) available only in exchange for time originally purchased and donated by a sufficiently wide variety of subscribers. Heavy kernel contributors would naturally end up receiving (and proudly displaying) such goodies at public events. In due course, LWN subscription time might end up as a de-facto micropayment system for the Free Software world, supplanting virtual beer -- and, one might even hope, PayPal.
LWN is, by far, the most respected name in Free Software journalism, easily matching WSJ's relationship to its industry. It ought to have a correspondingly high profile, and reward its principals accordingly. For that to happen, it must be very easy to move money to and around LWN, and LWN needs to establish a much more visible public profile.
Mail a link Posted Oct 18, 2005 14:12 UTC (Tue) by FraserCampbell (guest, #33142) [Link] After having browsed around for a day with my new subscription, I must concur. Mail a link would be an excellent feature.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 2:44 UTC (Thu) by subhasroy (guest, #325) [Link] Many sites solicit and accept donations. So, I am not sure why LWN is unable to accept donations.bittorrent.com example: http://www.bittorrent.com/donate.html
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 4:50 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Yeah. Donations should not go via "normal" bank (this is really major hassle for banks so banks are usually quite reluctant). But why not accept donations via PayPal/PayCash/WMTransfer/etc ? These systems are more-or-less designed to make money transfer without assurance (and this is the point where bank is having fits as far as donations are concerned) easy ! Just do not forget to move $$ from PayPal/PayCash/WMTransfer/etc to bank regularly (no assurance == you money can do "puff" and disappear at any time; it's not everyday occurrence but it does happen)...
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 2:52 UTC (Thu) by wruppert (subscriber, #3041) [Link] There are two subscriber models on the web you might consider.
One is WebMasterWorld.com, a very active forum. Most of the site is open, but there is one forum open only to supporters (subscribers) plus a very good "why you should support us" page. You may consider having such an area. Given the paucity of decent software reviews, I think the Grumpy Editor series worthy of subscriber only status.
Another model is the NY Times recent changes. It is the inverse of LWN. All content is open for a week, then it goes to the subscriber only archive. And they made some very valuable content (the columnists) totally subscriber only. Keeping the news articles open for a week would allow forwarding and slashdotting, drawing more potential subscribers to the site.
And you need that really good "why you should support us page" with a very up-front link.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 7:52 UTC (Thu) by kms (subscriber, #6679) [Link] > Another model is the NY Times recent changes. It is the inverse of LWN.> All content is open for a week, then it goes to the subscriber only > archive. And they made some very valuable content (the columnists) > totally subscriber only. Keeping the news articles open for a week would > allow forwarding and slashdotting, drawing more potential subscribers to > the site.
You could also attempt a hybrid of the two - content closed for a week, open for a period (a month?), then closed again in the archive. This would be more complex to implement and maintain, so careful cost benefit analysis would be needed.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 9:01 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Closed far-past content is a very bad idea in my opinion: it means that search engines cannot see it.It doesn't generate much revenue (how many people would be willing to pay specifically to see very old stuff?), yet the enormous resource that is old LWN articles talking about things of current interest would vanish. (I know I consulted a lot of old 2.5 kernel pages when upgrading to 2.6, and have often consulted distro reviews and such things when considering trying out the distro reviewed. I recently had cause to look at some LWN articles from 1999; even the ancient stuff is useful!)
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 9:33 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Closed far-past content is a very bad idea in my opinion: it means that search engines cannot see it.Wouldn't have they already cached it during the one month open period?
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:19 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The next time the search engines rescanned it and it was closed, it would disappear from them again. :(
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 10:32 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Closed far-past content is a very bad idea in my opinion: it means that search engines cannot see it.
This can trivially be worked around by allowing requests from *.google.com and like unrestricted. This is what others are doing, I believe, as I often come across a Google reference that requires a subscription.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 12:18 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] But then everybody can read the cached article on Google, which makes the whole action mood again.
Joachim
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 13:39 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] You're right, of course. When I wrote the comment, I had in mind on-line versions of archived papers in several scientific journals, which are available in the PDF format and as such are not cached by Google.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:12 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Likewise here. I do NOT like the idea of closed "reference" content, andwould STRONGLY consider dropping my subscription and doing without or going elsewhere if it happened. One of the benefits I hold most dear, of being a regular LWN reader/subscriber, is that of being able to point to cite LWN articles in my various news and lists posts as authoritative references, keeping in mind that both lists and news are regularly archived and indexed, thus being available for others to come across months or years later. Were the references I cite NOT to be kept online such that they could be referenced later, the value of doing so, thus much of the value of the articles to me in the first place, would disappear. LWN would no longer be worth paying my hard earned money for, and I'd almost certainly cease to be a subscriber. Last year, I was too busy to read LWN regularly for a period of several months. Even so, I counted my subscription as money well spent, because LWN is a community resource in its own right, and I'm proud to do my small part to contribute to that resource. Were LWN to close their archive, that resource would disappear, and I'd have little reason beyond the early access to continue subscribing. That /might/ still be worth a $2.50/mo starving level subscription, but not higher, and I'd probably drop that, on principle. So, yes, I DEFINITELY oppose any closing of the past archive to all but subscribers! Duncan
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 19:19 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thirded, or fourthed or whatever. Closing the archive is, IMHO, a very bad business model. It offers the worst of possible worlds: no value as a reference to the world (which is the web's biggest strength), no reason to subscribe (since information is usually available elsewhere), possible leaks bleed the site (which leads to an uphill battle to protect its diminishing value), only current news can attract readers (which is the opposite of what LWN offers).Right now it does not matter much if a subscriber borrows a page and post it elsewhere; in a week it will be available. I can even link to it with the confidence that it will be there in a few years. Non-subscribers can even see what they are missing, and public interest news are made public. In short, LWN works both as a compilation of useful news and a public archive. If it closed its archive, it would be of interest only to a handful of specialists. How many people would pay for that? Do you think that kernel developers alone could maintain the site?
Closing the archive Posted Oct 13, 2005 19:56 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Just to get it out there: closing the archive has never seemed like something that made a whole lot of sense for LWN. We've never really considered it, and we're not considering it now.
Closing the archive Posted Oct 13, 2005 20:01 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Good! Thanks for the reassurance!Duncan
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 11:56 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] > The idea of extending the subscription period did not inspire a great many replies, one way or another. We may try a modest extension (to two weeks, perhaps).
I have to say I am not a big fan of the idea. Two weeks is making close to the limit were we can as well consider it subscription-only, but it is not the same to get close to the limit than to trespass it, so I still consider it would be acceptable.
But I think it should be possible to make subscriptions more attractive without making LWN less attractive for non-subscribers.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 13:24 UTC (Thu) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link] What about cross-advertising with other Linux periodicals or on other Linux sites? Linuxdevices.com, the various distro sites like debian, suse, etc, maybe even the OSDN network. Just a thought.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 13:48 UTC (Thu) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link] It may be bad form to reply to myself, but I just had the thought: start with all the sites you link to on a fairly regular basis: groklaw, ZDNet, Linux journal, eweek, even the smaller sites like kde.news. After all, you link to them... their readership is clearly interested in at least a subset of what LWN covers, so they might be interested in more. See if those sites are up for ad or link exchange.
LWN cross-link advertising -- knewsticker Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:20 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Well, I don't believe there's a formal agreement, but I discovered LWNbecause its RSS feed is shipped as one of the feed options in KDE's knewsticker. I don't know if the LWN feed is listed by default in aKregator, but it might be worthwhile to investigate. The same of course goes for the other feed readers mentioned in the Grumpy Editor article covering them, since I know of at least /one/ subscriber that found LWN that way! =8^) Duncan
LWN cross-link advertising -- knewsticker Posted Oct 17, 2005 15:07 UTC (Mon) by Zenith (subscriber, #24899) [Link] How funny you should mention this, this was exactly the same way I found LWN.net :-P
I do think however, that I actually once Googled my way to it, but it was the RSS feed in Knewsticker.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 14, 2005 7:26 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] A thought, though I'm not sure how it would work out in practice... possibly give free subscriptions to people developing things like KDE? As one of the other posters mentions, he found LWN through an RSS feed in a KDE program. If you familiarize more Linux developers with the site, might they wish to support it in turn?
Of course, some number of existing subscribers are bound to qualify, so you'd lose money there. And maybe they're all here already. :) I realize this would need a lot of thinking, I'm just trying to seed the idea.
A related thought would be to make friends with editors of other technical websites, perhaps ones that aren't in the Linux mainstream, and give them subscriptions. It would be doubleplusgood if you could let them link occasional articles...that might catch quite a few new readers. You could probably do that manually. They could just ask for permission and you could open the content per article.
Your content here is second to none. You have a great product, it's just a matter of getting the word out.
Overall, the idea of letting users send limited-access links to their friends is probably the single best idea I've heard. It's definitely better than these, and I'd suggest implementing that first if it's not too hard. But these lesser ideas would be easy to do within the code structure you've already set up.... sort of a quick, cheap bandaid.
T-shirts Posted Oct 13, 2005 13:28 UTC (Thu) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] One other popular recurring idea, which I haven't seen you respond to isT-shirts (and other swag)... Why not partner up with ThinkGeek, or CopyLeft, or even CafePress, and have some LWN shirts made up, with you getting a healthy cut of the profits from their sale?? Sure, it might not be a HUGE source of revenue, but I don't think it's entirely unworthy of consideration, either... Plus, geeks wearing LWN T-shirts == free real-world advertising for the site! ;-)
T-shirts Posted Oct 13, 2005 14:41 UTC (Thu) by Quazatron (guest, #4368) [Link] Yes, I'd like that too. In white, please. :-)
T-shirts Posted Oct 13, 2005 15:51 UTC (Thu) by freddyh (subscriber, #21133) [Link] I'll absolutely buy a few.This is also a great way of giving a donation: just buy some extra t-shirts and pay a bit more for them...
T-shirts Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:28 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] Yeah!
We want T-shirts! And other merchandise :)
Maybe even a "Lwn.net Subscriber" T-shirt :)
T-shirts Posted Oct 17, 2005 21:04 UTC (Mon) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531) [Link] I was thinking of T-Shirts - or other merchandise in general - when I spotted thisthread. Seems like a bonafide way of taking arbitrary sized donatio^H^H^H^H^H^H^H payments from loyal readers.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 14:12 UTC (Thu) by goodgnews (guest, #31551) [Link] I would think that extending the subscriber-only content to two weeks would increase your subscriptions. It was only just bearable to read LWN with a one week delay before I subscribed. Two weeks would have been definitely too long to wait. A one week delay is very short and does not give much incentive to subscribe.
LWN non-subscriber timeout extention Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:41 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] I still like the idea of making it 10 days (or even just 9), effectivelyputting the public weekly release on the weekend. That might bring in a new target audience, while encouraging "professional" users to subscribe, since they'd then get it on Monday, the start of the week with all sorts of /other/ stuff to catch up on. By Thursday, the week is winding down, so in theory anyway, there's a bit more time to read. Thus, this would encourage "professionals" to subscribe, so they could get access at a more convenient time for them, while possibly opening up a different sort of target audience, the weekend readers, as well. Of course, that all depends on the current non-subscriber reader profile and access patterns. If the logs indicate a higher non-login readership on the weekends already, this probably wouldn't help all that much. Also, I'm NOT in favor of increasing the subscriber-only period, unless it's in parallel with some sort of news and mailing list postable link policy, that allows bypassing the normal subscriber-only wall. That's because, as I mentioned in reply to the original article, I frequently find myself linking LWN articles, and am already inconvenienced when the link won't work for several days, for non-subscribers. Allowing me to post working links to them, while lengthening the regular non-subscriber wait time to two weeks, would be entirely acceptable. (Additionally, a two-day or so blackout before even privileged links would start working, would be acceptable. Thus, subscribers could get it when posted, privileged links would start working two days later, and non-subscribers coming in thru non-privileged links would get access at the normal week to two-week time.) Duncan
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 13, 2005 14:20 UTC (Thu) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link] I still think an LWN sponsored mailing list for everyone in the project leader subscription group would be a great value-added service that would encourage more people to step up to the plate with their dough. Such a mailing list would essentially be on-topic for any OSS related questions and activites and reach a wide group of very intelligent people with diverse talents. The mailing list could easily be pushed in the weekly editions with sumaries of major discussions. I think it's something you should give some serious thought to. It would be, IMHO, the best collection of broad and indepth OSS knowledge pretty much anywhere. I participate in a similar, though much much smaller mailing list and I cannot begin to tell you how great an experience it is. Not only can you ask about things you are struggling with an haven't tried before, but you'll hear about new and exciting things you wouldn't find anywhere else. An LWN mailing list for project leaders would allow them to tap into untold knowledge and encourage $5 subscribers to up the anty.
Mailing list Posted Oct 13, 2005 14:22 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Sorry, I didn't mention this one, but it's not forgotten. It's an idea worth looking into, and not all that hard to try out. It's on the list, thanks.
Mailing list Posted Oct 13, 2005 15:14 UTC (Thu) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link] Glad you think it's worth considering. :-) if you'd like to look at a similar "generic OSS" mailing list you can find one in the slackware-ot mailing list. Of course, that list is for discussions that are off- topic to the usenet group alt.os.linux.slackware, so it gets everything from "Ideas on Web Filtering with Reports" to "Got a New Job" to "Look at my Fish". Just looking through the archives will give you an idea of what a larger LWN mailing list could do for its subscribers. Just make sure the topic isn't "anything off topic". :^)
LWN sponsored mailing list Posted Oct 13, 2005 16:45 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Hmm... you must have posted after I read the original article, and Ididn't get back to it to read your post. However, I like this idea. It might provide /me/ the needed excuse to up to the project lead level, at least for a few months, to try it out! =8^) Duncan
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 15, 2005 22:17 UTC (Sat) by danieldk (guest, #27876) [Link] I can only agree with Alan. Most LWN subscribers are very knowledgable, and combining expertise in a mailinglist would be educative and useful for subscribers. Even though I am a student, I would consider upgrading my account to the "project leader" level if such a mailinglist was added as a service for "project leader" subscribers.
Advertising Posted Oct 13, 2005 18:53 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] Advertisers like to know what they're getting. Enhancing the advertising FAQ entry with a bit of demographics and statistics, borrowing liberally from other sites' similar stats, but bits such as pageviews, subscriber v. nonsubscriber views, and if available, any user demographics (survey time?) might help make the case. Making the advertising link(s) more prominent might also help. I think LWN's "pay for current, archive free" pricing model is a good one and sane, it should be coupled with a targetted adverts policy as well. I still point people to my capsule analysis of why The Economist succeeds both financially and in terms of product quality through its balance of revenues and activities:
LWN keeps costs down, has a tightly focused audience (as does the Economist), and presents quality material. Round out the revenue picture as necessary, I'd think classifieds and / or special reports might be a good direction to look.
different levels of subscription Posted Oct 13, 2005 19:58 UTC (Thu) by jbw (guest, #5689) [Link] Please make there be *some* difference between the levels of subscription so I can justify getting the highest level.
Site Design Posted Oct 13, 2005 20:06 UTC (Thu) by mikeraz (guest, #155) [Link] "A few users have suggested that the site could use a redesign to give it a more professional look. No doubt that is true, and a site makeover has been on the "to do" list for some time."
Gah, retch, grrrrr. "More professional?" Do those users suggest to themselves they need to wear ties and suit jackets at work to have a more professional look?
Please do not waste a moment on a makeover. Please do continue to spend all your time providing the great content I keep coming back for.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 14, 2005 4:27 UTC (Fri) by sitaram (subscriber, #5959) [Link] > LWN does not need a reputation for spamming developer lists, however,> so much care will have to be taken with this approach.
True, but you can create a system where any of your members, who also happens to be part of developer lists, can do so on your behalf. *With* his recommendations that it is a good article and his fellow members should read it.
That isn't spam. It's almost word-of-mouth advertising, and it's yet another way your members can help you!
You'd have to work out the details of course. But it's worth exploring.
Keep up the great work.
Sitaram
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 14, 2005 5:21 UTC (Fri) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] "A few users have suggested that the site could use a redesign to give it a more professional look."
Oops. For years now whenever a Professional Web Designer asks me what web sites should look like (*), one of my first examples in response is the subscriber-only version of LWN.
Now I have learned that LWN does not look like a professional web site. Correction noted.
;-)
(*) Now you might wonder what PWD's would see in my opinion on web design. It turns out that many PWD's have never *seen* a Linux box (even though the web pages they publish might be hosted on one), and have no idea what a web page might "look like on Linux." Since I prefer to run nothing else, I get asked to show them their own pages "on a Linux web browser," which takes me a while to do since there are so many of them (often I can show them each page of their new site on a different browser without repetition). The good news is that they often get the hint about reading an HTML spec and sticking to it, but the bad news is that not one of the PWD's I've met in the last five years has ever *read* a W3C HTML spec before I met them.
LWN status - a followup Posted Oct 14, 2005 7:40 UTC (Fri) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link] "one of my first examples in response is the subscriber-only version of LWN."
I think they were talking about the non subscriber area.
Some ideas Posted Oct 14, 2005 15:29 UTC (Fri) by jneves (guest, #2859) [Link] For the record, I just resubscribed (another year has passed already?).
As I said in most the discussions before, I'm against closing more of LWN's content. In my opinion LWN needs more people knowing about it, not less people reading it.
One thing I'd link to see would just be some banners to put on my webpage. I wouldn't mind advertising for LWN for free (I've been doing it for years in mouth-to-mouth, doing on the webpage would be just easier). I have no graphic design skills whatsoever, having something other than the logo on the top of the page available would be nice.
I'd like to propose a content licensing. Take a look at magnatune's buying options. I think there would be interest for people to license LWN's articles for things like company newsletters, translation into foreign languages. No idea if it would work, but you could start with something like IEEE or ACM's fee per print. Would I buy it? Yes. But we're planning just 200 copies of our newsletter, so it wouldn't matter much to LWN.
The link issue has been discussed thoroughly, but I think there's another solution for it. When magnatune (yes, I like their ways) offered an album to all first year buyers, I passed it on to someone else. That person has told others (usually in reply to things like "what's that that you're hearing?").
LWN is a little different, but I think it could work. My proposal is: offer a 1/2-day gift-certificate each month to each subscriber. Every time there's an interesting enough story that the subscriber wants to send to another person, he offers this gift-certificate. The advantages, as I see it, are: 1) mouth to mouth is generated from your best content (which doesn't happen know, because subscribers can't send a working link), 2) receivers have to create an account to see a link that interests them (losing that as an excuse), 3) people are given sometime to discover how good LWN is in its full, 4) the timeframe is small enough that people can't afford to let subscribing to another day.
Well, just my ideas. Keep up the great work.
Cheaper subscriptions? Posted Oct 17, 2005 15:47 UTC (Mon) by FraserCampbell (guest, #33142) [Link] I just subscribed for the first time a few minutes ago. I've been reading LWN for years and subscribing has been on my mind for as long as it has been available.
If the cost was 30USD/year I expect that you would get many more subscriptions. Would you more than double the readership, hard to say ...
I also feel that extending the non-free reading period to 2 weeks would be a bad idea, I'm not convinced that it would increase subscriptions but it would greatly reduce the non-free readers which could hurt LWN long term.
Don't get me wrong, I think there is still a lot of value at 60USD and I subscribed at the 60USD level but it did make me think twice for all these years. The news I get from LWN I cannot get anywhere else.
Cheaper subscriptions? Posted Oct 24, 2005 23:19 UTC (Mon) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] If the cost was 30USD/year I expect that you would get many more subscriptions. That already is the "starving hacker" rate.
Donations, relabel as Premium Service Posted Oct 20, 2005 14:51 UTC (Thu) by alext (guest, #7589) [Link] It seems a slight of hand. But on the presumption that those who want to offer donations are already subscribers you could offer and ehanced subscription service.
What would such a service do? Who knows. You might think of things as you go along. Perhaps use the people as an ideas testing pool or something in advance of other features.
The point is you can allow the donations for something legitimate in the eyes of your bank.
|
|||||||||||||