# New owners!! Thanks for listening. :)



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Perhaps this would get the ball rolling.

Moderators/Owners: I do not ever remember signing up to have my words hyper-linked to somebody else's ads that I do not even know. Please explain when you notified me you were going to start doing this. Ads all over the top of the page are intrusive enough, but planting an ad inside a post, without the post-writer's permission or even knowledge, is insidious. It is certainly suspicious that they only appear when I log out of my account. If there is no harm, why wouldn't they just appear all the time? You are trying to pull a fast one. My words are not for sale, and I understand why Dennis Nedry was so upset. You have no right to twist the meaning like that. Please remove those hyper-links from the posts I write and do not insert any more in the future unless you ask me first and I agree.

I value ehMac as a very informative and helpful site, and I did not think you would be pimping us out to sell more ads. This is low. I do not wish to quit the site, but I expect you to change your behaviour. I guess I'll know how much you care if I find this very post auto-hyper-linked as soon as I post it.



mrjimmy said:


> + a lot.
> 
> Perhaps someone should start a thread with the title in all caps alerting the mods to our displeasure in having our words monetized.
> 
> PM's and grievances buried in threads don't seem to work.


_
Edited to add: The problem identified in this thread has now been resolved. Thanks to the new owners of ehMac for listening to our concerns._


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

If thread with it's opening post is to gain support from those who oppose this new and latest sneaky attempt at planting advertising, then please by any and all means add me to the list.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Camino of course kills all ads. After switching to Safari and turning the pop-up blocker off, I saw all sorts of ads but none embedded within individual posts. 

However if it turns out this is indeed the future for ehMac, I will shortly join Dennis in a full scale exit from the site.

OTOH I have noted an occasional phrase being auto linked to God knows where. Certainly these were not links I intentionally inserted or wanted to be there. Perhaps part of the: Auto parse links in text setting?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I was unaware that this is going on.

I'm busy for the next couple of weeks, but if it has not been addressed satisfactorily by time I'm back from the conferences I'm going to, I'll spend a day deleting my posts and end my participation here.

Fortunately, we still have Mac Magic.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

+1


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Has anyone PM'ed the ex-mayor? He may be in touch with the new owners and may be able to alert them to the rumbles of discontent before we see a massive exodus.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

test

iPod Nano

Test 2

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-commissioner-says-partisanship-not-involved-agency-behavior-134141319.html

Interesting: Deselecting "Automatically parse links in text", had no impact on the phrase iPod Nano which still links to Amazon, but it did prevent the pasted yahoo link from working.

Huston we have a problem!!!!!!

EDIT: I think this issue has been ongoing for some time. I just never bothered to click on those red links before as I was aware that the poster was not responsible for inserting them. And yes now that I realize what I am looking for they do show in Camino.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> if it has not been addressed satisfactorily by time I'm back from the conferences I'm going to, I'll spend a day deleting my posts and end my participation here.
> 
> Fortunately, we still have Mac Magic.


Yup!


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Just looked at an ad I have up for a m a c p r o and sure enough the name has a link to Amazon. Sheesh. Not to mention the giant ad boxes that are all over the place. Basically any possible product has a link. The word "v i d e o c a r d" has a hyperlink. Disappointed to say the least. 

Even the tapatalk signature has a hyperlink in it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

All kidding aside, this is ridiculous. Kill the automatic ad-linking.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

not to play devils advocates.. but if you are on a public forum or privately run either way which you are part of, there is an understanding that you are loosing out to the way the forum operates.. obviously it makes sense if you are on the internet, what you say is public..

look at Facebook, everything is set to public unless you change it.. not to mention - they are selling your info and photos weather you like it or not.
Hense I keep my personal info to a minimum, not to mention even with Facebook, I have no personal info in Facebook, nothing is real, those who are my friends they know who i am and what I do.. I think it is rather naive for someone to think that what you have on the net is private and secure. 

ehmac is trying to make money to provide you a 'free' service.. 

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HAD A FREE LUNCH?


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I agree that the hyper linking is uncalled for and underhanded. I was poking around on the forum from my iPhone, not logged in, and the links all over the place make the site look like nothing more than cheesy link farm. If I was a non-member, looking for a Mac help forum, I don't think I'd choose one littered with links to commercial sites within posts that most of the time have absolutely nothing to do with the post itself, weren't put there by the poster, and are so clearly simply an attempt to monetize absolutely everything! As a non-member, you'd also have no way to know that those hyperlinks don't appear when you're logged in as a member.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I have to agree. The members here have been here a long time, and give of their personal time to add 'value' to the site in the form of responding to questions and helping when needed, building discussion.

The members shouldn't be exploited this way.

And BTW when I give of my free time to help anyone etc., I often, GET A FREE LUNCH.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

bryanc said:


> Has anyone PM'ed the *ex-mayor*? He may be in touch with the new owners and may be able to alert them to the rumbles of discontent before we see a massive exodus.


I don't know what he is doing now. Another site he was on is dead. He has not tweeted in ages. Its like he has vanished.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> I don't know what he is doing now. Another site he was on is dead. He has not tweeted in ages. Its like he has vanished.


Maybe he's been disappeared for knowing too much.  

iPod Touch 
iPod Nano

(testing the system)


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Boy, that was quick. Hey kids, iPod Touches for sale on Amazon!!

The red inked iPod Touch text will take you here. I didn't do it, but it took a fraction of a second (in logged-out view) after my previous post was submitted:

<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=ipod%20touch&x=0&y=0&tag=viglink126191-20> Just cope and paste the part between the < > signs. Oddly, the URL link doesn't work when just pasted here. Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

I am a lifetime member and as such, have not been subjected to ads. After going through this thread, I checked EhMac on another browser without logging in. My God. What a messy site. I wouldn't ever drop in if I had to put up with all the advertising. The best way I can describe it is NOISY.
At the time, I thought it was a very expensive mug but it was $100 well spent.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Edited my signature to make my position on these ads clearer.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> not to play devils advocates.. but if you are on a public forum or privately run either way which you are part of, there is an understanding that you are loosing out to the way the forum operates.. obviously it makes sense if you are on the internet, what you say is public..
> 
> look at Facebook, everything is set to public unless you change it.. not to mention - they are selling your info and photos weather you like it or not.
> Hense I keep my personal info to a minimum, not to mention even with Facebook, I have no personal info in Facebook, nothing is real, those who are my friends they know who i am and what I do.. I think it is rather naive for someone to think that what you have on the net is private and secure.
> ...


There are enough ads to make the site completely unappealing to anyone who does not take advantage of adblocking abilities of the modern browser. Using keywords to embed ad links into posts and even signatures is going a bit too far.

Like I said earlier my tendency to completely ignore links that I know were not placed there by the poster is so complete that I really did not clue in until the OP flushed it out. That is not true for all users. Since this site has absolutely nothing to offer without its posters, the owners would be very well advised to revisit this policy.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> There are enough ads to make the site completely unappealing to anyone who does not take advantage of adblocking abilities of the modern browser. Using keywords to embed ad links into posts and even signatures is going a bit too far.
> 
> Like I said earlier my tendency to completely ignore links that I know were not placed there by the poster is so complete that I really did not clue in until the OP flushed it out. That is not true for all users. Since this site has absolutely nothing to offer without its posters, the owners would be very well advised to revisit this policy.


I am actually pretty surprised that people in this age and time are not using gimme blocker or some form of ad blocking.. 
I have ads blocked on the router/firewall side of my network so my browsing on the idevices are protected as well.. so I dont see this 'hyperlinkings' or ADs everywhere, that you are discussing.. 

but from a business side of things I do see where ehmac is coming from for recouping operating costs. - maybe hyperlinking is has taken it too far..


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I am actually pretty surprised that people in this age and time are not using gimme blocker or some form of ad blocking..
> I have ads blocked on the router/firewall side of my network so my browsing on the idevices are protected as well.. so I dont see this 'hyperlinkings' or ADs everywhere, that you are discussing..
> 
> but from a business side of things I do see where ehmac is coming from for recouping operating costs. - maybe hyperlinking is has taken it too far..


Defnitely too far. I use AdBlock too, but AdBlock will not cover text that you've written that has been modified to include planted hyper-links. It's worse than plagiarism, because it puts the poster in a position where they appear to be endorsing a particular seller on eBay, for example, and the poster doesn't even know they're being used for this purpose because it doesn't show up when you're logged in. It's probably a good thing Dennis put it as cryptically as he did, or no one might have noticed and responded. Now let's see what kind of explanation the new owners of ehMac would like to offer for this unprecedented (for this forum) privacy intrusion.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Edited my signature to make my position on these ads clearer.


Would like your permission to add that to my signature as well.

FWIW this line is the only thing I could find in the terms of agreement that might cover the offending links:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]ehMac uses technology from the company "Viglink" to monetize out-going links by inserting affiliate code.

[/FONT]However it refers to out going links, it does not claim the right to create such links with-in a post or signature.

Please note that the link to Vigl... was created without either my direct or implied permission
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]
[/FONT]


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Would like your permission to add that to my signature as well.


Please feel free to do so.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Please feel free to do so.


Borrowed sig. Thanks.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Borrowed sig. Thanks.


Thanks as well


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonal said:


> Edited my signature to make my position on these ads clearer.


Sonal - I just logged in, saw the latest...couldn't see the links so I logged out and reviewed the same threads. 

Yup. They're there alright. Gack. 

Then I saw this one: 









I wondered if Macfury's sense of humor was at play here....but I logged back in and the link was gone...so, no. 

I'm also guessing that soon this post may be likewise linked above. 

So, nal, your signature may state your position, but if it ever contains your name...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Please feel free to do so.


I might start start | eBay writing artificial links into my posts because a) I can can | eBay, and b) it's fun to poke the hornet's nest nest | eBay every once in a while. For all of you who, like me, don't ever log log | eBay out, here's what your missing missing | eBay, looks-wise.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> So, nal, your signature may state your position, but if it ever contains your name...


If only all those Viglinks went to my blog. I'd be okay with that. (Of course, then I'd have ot start encouraging people to click through.)

Ah well... there's a Bollywood star with the same first name as me. It's not the worst association I could have.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

test sig


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Edited my signature to make my position on these ads clearer.


I borrowed you warning also, with some expansion. Thanks.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Sonal said:


> All kidding aside, this is ridiculous. Kill the automatic ad-linking.


+1.

This is insane.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Please feel free to do so.
> 
> WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. You can opt out here. I do not endorse these ad links. Don't click on them.


If I opt out as your Interwebs pathway indicates does it stop the pathways from appearing in my posts or does it just stop my ability to view the highlighted pathway?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I thought this would be a test of the virtual occupy movement with the use of ebay.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> If I opt out as your Interwebs pathway indicates does it stop the pathways from appearing in my posts or does it just stop my ability to view the highlighted pathway?


Stops you from seeing it. It doesn't stop it from happening.

Still, if a random viewer out there opts out, all the better.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I am going to suggest that all standing members log out and don't even visit ehMac for a short period of time. We set a date that we can all come back and see what kind of response we get from site owners after that. It's the members activity that is driving this site, not the random visitors that happen by.

Let's go on strike and see what effect that has with the owners.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Another good place to register your discontent. Plus Mo actually responded to this one.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=103906


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macified said:


> I am going to suggest that all standing members log out and don't even visit ehMac for a short period of time. We set a date that we can all come back and see what kind of response we get from site owners after that. It's the members activity that is driving this site, not the random visitors that happen by.
> 
> Let's go on strike and see what effect that has with the owners.


Out till Tuesday, then go from there.


----------



## johnp (Aug 7, 2011)

Much-appreciate all the discussion here ... I had wondered what was happening. I've opted out!!!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Out till Tuesday, then go from there.


Done. Time for the long weekend!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Done. Time for the long weekend!


10-4 Rubber Ducky. 
Over and Out.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Being logged in with Camino, that site looks the same as it always has.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I just accessed ehMac with Chrome and not logged in - what a mess.
Looks cheezy as hell!

I never realized that there is advertisement wherever one looks - at the top several times, on the right, between posts.

It's really embarrassing to recommend ehMac to anyone - I sure won't do that any more.
There is more advertising on the screen than useful information - and that assumes every post contains useful information.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> +1.
> 
> This is insane.


Count me in as in full agreement! Shameful! I too have added the warning to my signature.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

krs said:


> Looks cheezy as hell!
> 
> I never realized that there is advertisement wherever one looks - at the top several times, on the right, between posts.
> 
> ...


Anyone want to buy a lifetime membership mug? That's it isn't it? I could no longer recommend this place to anyone because it has become an embarrassment.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Looks like the Mayor sold us out.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

rgray said:


> Anyone want to buy a lifetime membership mug? That's it isn't it? I could no longer recommend this place to anyone because it has become an embarrassment.


I almost feel like I want to ask for a refund on my mug! When I joined, there were no ads that i remember ( if there were, they weren't intrusive) Then, as things grew, John added some, all pretty much Mac-related. And not long after, he offered the option to become a lifetime member and never see any more ads. I figured it would help reduce the number of ads overall, as well as making my own browsing experience more pleasant. Well, I was right about the second bit, but dead wrong on the first, at least now that the site is under new ownership.

If I was looking for a Mac forum to join now, I'd probably give ehMac a wide berth, simply because of how awful and cluttered it looks. It's like the Times Square of Mac forums now!

There are ad-free alternatives;
MacDoc's Magic - Forums powered by UBB.threads™
Http://Techsurvivors.net (formed by a bunch of Nowonder refugees when that forum was sold over a decade ago - I am an administrator there and we'd welcome any ehMac members - a few of you are there already)
FineTunedMac - Forums powered by UBB.threads™ (formed by a bunch of Macfixit refugees after that site was sold to CNET. I think there may be a few ehMac members there too)


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Paddy said:


> It's like the Times Square of Mac forums now!


That's a good way of putting it!


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

rgray said:


> WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
> 
> HOWEVER: occasionally I have in the past provided links to instructions or illustrations. I will not do so in future, in fact I will not be offering helpful advice for free just to have my words pirated until the sleazy ad linking desists. I will, however, answer PMs.


Coming soon to PM's in a forum near you, hyperlinks. beejacon


----------



## racewalker (Sep 20, 2010)

T


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

Wow, I just opened the site up in firefox to see what it looks like with all the ads, holy crap does it look bad. Not a huge issue for me personally as I primarily use Safari and Chrome with AdBlock extensions enabled, so I don't have to see all that crap on a regular basis.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'll log out too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Macified said:


> I am going to suggest that all standing members log out and don't even visit ehMac for a short period of time. We set a date that we can all come back and see what kind of response we get from site owners after that. It's the members activity that is driving this site, not the random visitors that happen by.
> 
> Let's go on strike and see what effect that has with the owners.


The number of messages generated in a week is pitifully low already. It will make a difference, but not much.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

It's also the long weekend. Traffic will be low already.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My signature has been changed.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> My signature has been changed.


Mine seems to have been changed also! The warning has been removed and the signiature returned to what it was. I DID NOT DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!

This is a new and more egregious level of interference!!! 

EDIT: Sonal's sig has been changed also! So have some of the others!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mine too. One would think the new owners would at least have the decency to explain themselves in this thread. Anyone for adding the warning back?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Mine too. One would think the new owners would at least have the decency to explain themselves in this thread. Anyone for adding the warning back?


So far, the only explanation seems to come from this message from Mo in the Hyperlink Advertising thread: 



Mo said:


> Hey James,
> 
> This was recently added on the site as a way to pass on information when purchasing a product. You get different rates that different consumers offer on a product. Say you are in the market for an iphone. You might see the word iphone as a link in a post, but you have the option to click it to see what options you have or you don't need to click it.
> 
> ...


Not impressed. And I do not ever remember agreeing to let my words be twisted to appear to endorse specific eBay or Amazin ads from sellers I do not know. 

I am a human being, not a tool for advertisers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Mine seems to have been changed also! The warning has been removed and the signiature returned to what it was. I DID NOT DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a new and more egregious level of interference!!!
> 
> EDIT: Sonal's sig has been changed also! So have some of the others!


The signature on my personal control panel has not been changed. Someone has programmed it at a higher level so that it publicly reverts to what it was before I added the disclaimer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The signature on my personal control panel has not been changed. Someone has programmed it at a higher level so that it publicly reverts to what it was before I added the disclaimer.


I simply changed the word 'warning' to notice' and it appears again. I suspect if you change any single word in the sentence, it would have the same effect. Or even if you misspelled a word.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm on-board, with a flagrant plagiarism of our ehMac lord and saviour.

If it gets deleted, I have saved the code and will merely replace it.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The signature on my personal control panel has not been changed. Someone has programmed it at a higher level so that it publicly reverts to what it was before I added the disclaimer.


Same thing here!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Same thing here!!!


.


SINC said:


> I simply changed the word 'warning' to notice' and it appears again. I suspect if you change any single word in the sentence, it would have the same effect. Or even if you misspelled a word.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

rgray said:


> Same thing here!!!


If you make a change, it will show up again.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I went to Edit Signature, saw my new sig was there, made no changes and clicked update. Seemed to flip it back.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I went to Edit Signature, saw my new sig was there, made no changes and clicked update. Seemed to flip it back.


There's the likely answer. Somebody rolled back all updates at the admin level.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Oh boy, this reminds me of a Demi game at MacRumors.

And fun ensued. 

Oh, and this just in.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> There's the likely answer. Somebody rolled back all updates at the admin level.


So in essence the admin "hacked" into our personal accounts!!! 

This whole scenario just gets smellier and smellier.....

Yeah we can, at least for the moment, put the warnings back but how long are we, are you, am I prepared to carry on this skirmishing??? 

And isn't the war already lost in reality?? 

The only reason I don't ask for my account to be deleted is that I have contacts and friends here I might not find again in the big outside world....


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

rgray said:


> The only reason I don't ask for my account to be deleted is that I have contacts and friends here I might not find again in the big outside world....


Then I would suggest that you exchange E-mail addresses with them, via PMs.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Guys and gals,

I don't like what is happening here one bit, but don't forget - this is a public forum.
The owner makes the rules, all of us are essentially invited guests.
We can play by the owner's rules or are free to leave.
As the owner, and possibly the admins as well, one can essentially go into all the "personal" areas.

I would never suggest anyone keep any information that they need to have access to or keep on any public forum .
Forums usually die a slow death, but over the years I have been a member of at least two that just disappeared overnight. For those, all the info, personal and otherwise was just gone - pooof


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> Guys and gals,
> 
> I don't like what is happening here one bit, but don't forget - this is a public forum.
> The owner makes the rules, all of us are essentially invited guests.
> ...


The problem is when the owner changes the rules without telling anyone and uses your posts to advertise for someone else. For example, if you click on iPod Nano in one of my posts, why does it take you to a SPECIFIC eBay ad rather than a page of listings? Who placed the ad? Is it the same person as the owner of this forum? A relative? It's favoritism no matter how you slice it and not something I ever agreed to. The owner had best be careful, because without posters (of which there are about 20 or 30 regulars) there is no forum on which to advertise. I think we deserve better treatment than to be mules for somebody's ad links. And at the VERY least we deserved to be asked if we wished to participate BEFORE the first ad link was placed.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

krs said:


> Guys and gals,
> 
> I don't like what is happening here one bit, but don't forget - this is a public forum.
> The owner makes the rules, all of us are essentially invited guests.
> ...


I am not questioning whether the owners/admins/mods have the ability or power to do what they are doing. What I do question are the ethics of their actions. To my mind those actions are sleazy, unethical and unscrupulous.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> The problem is when the owner changes the rules without telling anyone and uses your posts to advertise for someone else. For example, if you click on iPod Nano in one of my posts, why does it take you to a SPECIFIC eBay ad rather than a page of listings? Who placed the ad? Is it the same person as the owner of this forum? A relative? It's favoritism no matter how you slice it and not something I ever agreed to. The owner had best be careful, because without posters (of which there are about 20 or 30 regulars) there is no forum on which to advertise. I think we deserve better treatment than to be mules for somebody's ad links. And at the VERY least we deserved to be asked if we wished to participate BEFORE the first ad link was placed.


I fully agree with what you posted except the very first part - the owner "changing the rules"
Were there any rules regarding advertising in the first place?

I was really shocked when I looked at ehMac without the ad-blockers Camino provides.
Even without the latest ad-links within the posts this website is an embarrassment for the Mac community.
Unfortunately I have received some very good advice from fellow members here in the past, so I'm a bit hesitant to just pack up my bags and leave.
If the 20 or 30 regulars move somewhere else, or set up another Mac forum, I'd be happy to move as well.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

rgray said:


> I am not questioning whether the owners/admins/mods have the ability or power to do what they are doing. What I do question are the ethics of their actions. To my mind those actions are sleazy, unethical and unscrupulous.


It's the word "hacking" that got me - I know you put it in quotation marks.
Seems the best option is to just move since no admin or moderator has commented in the 8 pages of this thread so I doubt anything will change for the better.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> It's the word "hacking" that got me - I know you put it in quotation marks.
> Seems the best option is to just move since no admin or moderator has commented in the 8 pages of this thread so I doubt anything will change for the better.


That should tell us something right there. Of course, we could always have fun with this whole ad links thing by putting our own links to the words most likely to be flagged. Starting with Dennis Nedry, for example. Or deliberately misspell the words most likely to be flagged, like iPawed Nano or EeBay, for example.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

A table of misspelled words is easy to handle. beejacon 

And replacing our signatures might not be the answer either, if visitors are not allowed to see them.

This I don't know, but I am suspicious.

EDIT: Ah, the worms have been busy overnight. My sig has been rolled-back as well. :lmao:

Easily fixed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It seems most of the core members here are really being P-eed off here. 

There needs to be some kind of resolution or this forum will be officially dead, pretty fast.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Did they delete the whole thread about this in the info center?

EDIT: Nope, my bad, somehow looking in the wrong place. It's there.


----------



## racewalker (Sep 20, 2010)

I


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

You'll notice the WTF has been removed in the subject line, however. Perhaps we have their attention now.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

racewalker said:


> I have decided not to stay logged off but rather to direct people away from this site that a talk to and no longer post here. If no one postes help the site will fade and the adds will be of no value!


That's kind of akin to poisoning your own well water, isn't it? If the site shuts down, we all disappear with it. I still like the site, just not the ad-links. Until they are removed, I will simply sabotage through misspelling. Perhaps better to try to change the system from within, methinks.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

everyone talk in incomplete sentences.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Backwards and up-side-down might work? 

O
r

h
o
w

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
i
s
?

beejacon


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

fjnmusic said:


> That's kind of akin to poisoning your own well water, isn't it? If the site shuts down, we all disappear with it. I still like the site, just not the ad-links. Until they are removed, I will simply sabotage through misspelling. Perhaps better to try to change the system from within, methinks.


I agree, I came to this site long ago looking for help and have stayed with it to this point. I have met many and enjoyed the discussions, not looking to cut bait and run, just want to see it go back to the way it was before it was sold. Ah well we can only dream.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sure, or you could just spell eeBay or Amazzon or iPpod Nano with one extra letter and it will kill the ad-link. Plus, you can still read the post. Compare in unlogged-in mode to eBay, Amazon, and iPod Nano.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Agreed. The new owners are well on the way to destroying this site. All one has to do is look at any other forums outside Everything Else, eh to see the deterioration. If they keep it up, they will kill the goose that laid the golden egg that they bought. They should have left it alone and prospered instead of the greed being demonstrated with the amount of ads which if kept up, will lead to nowhere for them.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Sure, or you could just spell eeBay or Amazzon or iPpod Nano with one extra letter and it will kill the ad-link. Plus, you can still read the post. Compare in unlogged-in mode to eBay, Amazon, and iPod Nano.


Guess I have to change my name???


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Guess I have to change my name???


You never know, Sonall.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Lokks like email notification was killed.
I didn't receive a single email notification from ehMac today although there should have been a few, like for this thread for example


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was just browsing redflagdeals and even not logged in, nowhere did I see any cheesy ad links anywhere, despite being a rather commercialized site.

They do have a lot of ads, but it's well laid out, and unobtrusive. Not logged in here, my opinion is, it's looks almost 'scammy' with ads ill placed everywhere, no real design or well thought out layout to any of them really, and then, those cheese arsed links.

My advice, is to spend much more time strategizing monetization rather than this, as it looks like the lowest of low. This place is, or I guess was, a really good community, rather unique in many ways.

I can guarantee the slow death of this place, I watched another really busy place go down which had similar stuff going on. Now you can shoot a kanon in that place.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Now you can shoot a canon in that place.


Links to Canon cameras on E-bay.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> http://links.com/ to Canon cameras on E-bay.


It's a new game challenge, like the change one letter or change one word game!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

man. (k)anon? Really?

It's as if you were having a decent conversation, and when you tragically uttered a certain word, the front door gets busted down and the entire publisher's sweepstake's crews comes screaming in, complete with the -most- annoying band possible.

Playing a horrendous cover of Wham! with auto tune, on nuclear.

Be interesting to see what links up in that. Wonder if that link system does er, inappropriate links too.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

*NEW OWNERS!! OUR WORDS ARE NOT FOR SALE to be linked to cheesy e-Bay ads!*

Hi


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm getting the sense that there is no concern for the community here.

With all due respect to the ex mayor, I think it was a huge, mistake.

After working in web for as long as I have now, one thing I've really hated about it, was the seedy link farm stuff that goes on.

It's about as bottom of the barrel in money making on the internet, as you can get.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Hi


did you edit that, or was it edited?

I saw the original.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Anyone recall this when I first raised the alarm?

http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/102241-retiring-mayor-ehmac-new-ownership-8.html#post1230475

Seems like empty words now, doesn't it?

Grab the cash and run comes to mind.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well honestly no one could predict what would happen with any certainty. I know how difficult it is to run a forum and implement features without the huge uproar believe me. And I certainly would be the first to cut some slack.

But what I'm seeing lately, isn't good.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I'm getting the sense that there is no concern for the community here.
> 
> With all due respect to the ex mayor, I think it was a huge, mistake.
> 
> ...


It's pretty obvious from the feedback so far that ehMac is simply another acquisition. The history and the relationships seem irrelevant to them.

As far as the ex Mayor, he obviously just wanted to get out. They probably offered a decent price and he (naturally) took the money and ran. He would have known who he was selling to...

They feel a bit like slumlords, don't they?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It's pretty obvious from the feedback so far that ehMac is simply another acquisition. The history and the relationships seem irrelevant to them.
> 
> As far as the ex Mayor, he obviously just wanted to get out. They probably offered a decent price and he (naturally) took the money and ran. He would have known who he was selling to...
> 
> They feel a bit like slumlords, don't they?


And yet no matter how many insults are hurled, nobody responds. Odd.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

A small tour of their other acquisitions shows this is rather normal, they path things go down.

I always thought ehMac had a certain uniqueness among all forums I've visited, it was populated by interesting people. This seems to have really dropped in the last while, there's not many left.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just did an online search of the new owners history with other acquisitions. (Do one yourself and read about the carnage dating back a half dozen years at least.) Same story on every forum acquired as we are experiencing here, including no response to member's objections from admin. Next, if the trend continues here, is charging life members to access what they already have, again. Time to bail out?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Just did an online search of the new owners history with other acquisitions. (Do one yourself and read about the carnage dating back a half dozen years at least.) Same story on every forum acquired as we are experiencing here, including no response to member's objections from admin. Next, if the trend continues here, is charging life members to access what they already have, again. Time to bail out?


I don't blame someone for wanting to sell the site. However, the history of the company who it was sold to was well known at the time of the sale. Telling people not to worry flew in the face of any rational acknowledgment of their typical pattern.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Just did an online search of the new owners history with other acquisitions. (Do one yourself and read about the carnage dating back a half dozen years at least.) Same story on every forum acquired as we are experiencing here, including no response to member's objections from admin. Next, if the trend continues here, is charging life members to access what they already have, again. Time to bail out?


You're spot on, a quick search for 'VerticalScope' leads to a lot of bad news, I'm really surprised it's taken this long for us to get our wake up call.
Note, the link in this post *is* mine.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

jamesB said:


> You're spot on, a quick search for 'VerticalScope' leads to a lot of bad news, I'm really surprised it's taken this long for us to get our wake up call.
> Note, the link in this post *is* mine.


What's more surprising is that ehMax sold it to them, either not doing his research or not caring that they would destroy the community.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

John Clay said:


> What's more surprising is that ehMax sold it to them, either not doing his research or not caring that they would destroy the community.


My best guess. I don;t think he would willfully do this to EhMac. I suspect he did not look at their dismal track record and they promised him things would be hunky dory and just like they always have been--even better--and that he could still be involved to keep it the same. The promise was then sealed with a hearty handclasp.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

IMHO, it's unfair to John to dump blame upon him for VerticalScope's issues in managing ehMac. The ex-Mayor did not abandon us - he gave ehMac a chance to continue. Whatever personal / economic / business / astrological reasons he had for moving on are not for us to call into question. Any concerns with how ehMac is currently run lies with the current management, full stop.

My experience has not been negative - primarily because I use AdBlocker, and haven't noticed any of those in-text links to which the rest of you refer. Visiting the site in Chrome, without logging in, I do see the ads and embedded links - and yes, they are obtrusive. Perhaps the best we can do, in the absence of a line of communication with Mo et al, is to suggest that everyone go the same route (AdBlocker, Glimmer, etc.).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> My experience has not been negative - primarily because I use AdBlocker, and haven't noticed any of those in-text links to which the rest of you refer. Visiting the site in Chrome, without logging in, I do see the ads and embedded links - and yes, they are obtrusive. Perhaps the best we can do, in the absence of a line of communication with Mo et al, is to suggest that everyone go the same route (AdBlocker, Glimmer, etc.).


Adblockers are not the answer to having it appear that we are supporting individual Ebay sales.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Even though I donut condom VerticalScope for perverting with their goal of making monkey, the system of anal membership fees now seems fart less appealing.

(almost worth logging out just to see links this post brings up) tptptptp


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> --even better--and that he could still be involved to keep it the same. The promise was then sealed with a hearty handclasp.


Apparently he still is involved, at least he is listed as a moderator, albeit just as silent on this issue as the present owners.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Adblockers are not the answer to having it appear that we are supporting individual Ebay sales.


Maybe not, but simply misspelling the words most likely to be linked stops the ad-links dead in their tracks. Check it out: iPod Nano versus iPodd Nano. Log out and see for yourself. Easy solution, at least for now.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

groovetube said:


> did you edit that, or was it edited?
> 
> I saw the original.


My edit. I posted in another thread. Ran out of battery. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

John Clay said:


> What's more surprising is that ehMax sold it to them, either not doing his research or not caring that they would destroy the community.


They may have used an intermediary. Do you know this for fact?



jamesB said:


> Even though I donut condom VerticalScope for perverting with their goal of making monkey, the system of anal membership fees now seems fart less appealing.
> 
> (almost worth logging out just to see links this post brings up) tptptptp


Very cleaver, beaver.



jamesB said:


> Apparently he still is involved, at least he is listed as a moderator, albeit just as silent on this issue as the present owners.


He has little to say about that now. They may get a giggle out of leaving his name up as a Mod?

When was the last time he was online?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

iMouse said:


> They may have used an intermediary. Do you know this for fact?


I'm just assuming. I doubt an intermediary was used...path of least resistance and all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

There's a bit of a problem that goes far beyond annoyance, when the forum states that my posts are authored by me, and are my views, but it automatically inserts links into my words that I supposedly authored.

I believe that, is a real problem. Ads are one thing, but to alter my words this way without my permission and then state it's authored by me and it being my views, that's a serious problem.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think this a a sad sign of the times. Take the print business. At one time almost all small towns had their own newspaper, now most have been purchased by two or three congloms...Metroland etc... Soon the "locals" just become carriers of national ads....which is the agenda of the con gloms. It's happening to radio, television, so why not websites.............. we just may be a little late coming to the party.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Looks like that new warning thread has been spiked.

Maybe it was my suggestion to make it a Sticky, and put one in every form.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

iMouse said:


> Looks like that new warning thread has been spiked.
> 
> Maybe it was my suggestion to make it a Sticky, and put one in every form.


Well at least we know there is someone lurking in the shadows waiting to censor our posts, at least the posts they can't use for their own advertising gains.
And this without any words or warnings, mind you one could suppose that any form of communication might entail some type of explanation as to what's been happening.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It pisses me off when they revert my signature to my old one, which listed different Apple products I use, all of which were linkable. Am I now forced to use that signature because it's better for the new owners? So much for the "my posts reflect my views, not ehMac" part. Guess I'll have to misspell all the products if it happens again. To which they'll probably override and revert again. I feel like such a whore.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

jamesB said:


> Well at least we know there is someone lurking in the shadows waiting to censor our posts, at least the posts they can't use for their own advertising gains.
> 
> And this without any words or warnings, mind you one could suppose that any form of communication might entail some type of explanation as to what's been happening.


Right after I posted that I checked for forum leaders on-line.

None, zip, nada. No Mods, Super Mods or Admins.

Must be the Ghost Of Christmas Future.

Oh, and the beating will continue until morale improves.

I'm just waiting for a top to be blown, and the Bans start flowing like blood at an abattoir.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> I feel like such a whore.


And yet *you* left money on the dresser???

This sounds like a business I should get into.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Hah I so called this way back when (when I left the first time around). So it's not a surprise to me at all ... there are still some glaring issues with the forum setup as well that will likely never be addressed. It's all about the ad revenue and nothing else, that's their M.O. and always has been. Maybe it's time to setup a viable alternative for people to use .... I have a great domain for it with a long history, maybe it's time to set it back up and get some of you folks over there ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

PM me, we'll talk by phone. Have a similar idea.

We haz servers, and tech


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> PM me, we'll talk by phone. Have a similar idea.
> 
> We haz servers, and tech


There ya go!, now this sounds promising, we could all bail en-mass and leave VerticalScope holding an empty bag.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

*Dr.G* would rather go down with the ship, than lose his post count. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You may be able to set up some sort of alternate forum, but you can't replicate this one. Neither can you recreate the full written history of the site. You might create something new that you enjoy, but not a replacement for EhMac. If people were that eager to leave, they'd have already migrated permanently to the fifth level of Hell, MacMagic and stopped posting here.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Don't want to replicate this one, just provide a more congenial venue to discuss all things mac and Canadian.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What is it about MacMagic that doesn't fulfill that goal?


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

For one you can't even sign up to it right now without emailing MacDoc (this was done due to too many spambots signing up), also there's little to no actual "Mac" discussion that ever happens there, it's mostly about politics, and even then it's deadsville. Thousands of members and almost no posts that actually happen. Also sticked topics from 7 years ago that haven't even had a reply in 5 years ... I dunno. Not a very active community ATM.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's kinda a throwback to the past, rather than a new venture. It's a bit off-putting to some perhaps.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gerk said:


> For one you can't even sign up to it right now without emailing MacDoc (this was done due to too many spambots signing up)...


I thought MacDoc passed the sign-up baton to the current admin/moderator.



Gerk said:


> ....also there's little to no actual "Mac" discussion that ever happens there, it's mostly about politics, and even then it's deadsville. Thousands of members and almost no posts that actually happen. Also sticked topics from 7 years ago that haven't even had a reply in 5 years ... I dunno. Not a very active community ATM.


Sounds like EhMac!

I'm not suggesting you abandon efforts to create another forum, but MacMagic already represents many of the current active members at EhMac, so how will a new place be different. The Verticalscope debacle has perhaps 25 EhMac members actively angry and most of them are already at MacMagic.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Macfury said:


> I thought MacDoc passed the sign-up baton to the current admin/moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No idea, maybe he did. Either way it's still deadsville. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As for the 25 members angry, how many *active* ehmac members do you think there are now?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMouse said:


> *Dr.G* would rather go down with the ship, than lose his post count. :lmao:


"Death before dishonor", iMouse. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

I sent John $100 for full membership, and I have gotten value for my money. So, we shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Me too. I would send my coffee mug back if I had a valid address.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

There is a simple answer to this for all of you that don't like what is going on...

Stop posting.

I realize that these probably sound as harsh words, but the reality is that it costs money to run a site. That money must come from somewhere. Regardless of who owns the site, they aren't going to run it for free. At the minimum they will want to cover their expenses, if they are a business, they will want to make a profit. 

My guess is that even the *simplest* bulletin board site will cost $3000 a year in expenses without making a profit. Hosting fees, cost of buying/replacing hardware, software licensing (fees (i.e. legal, accounting, business, etc.), and various other expenses. It adds up. And that's running it purely on a volunteer level.

I just did a quick search of the membership. There are only 500 members who have a) more than 100 posts and b) have posted since May 2012. Even if 25% of those members paid the annual silver membership (and that would be a fantastic conversion rate), that would result in just over $2000 in revenues. The remaining money needs to come from somewhere, otherwise the operator is digging into their own pocket to cover the shortfall. 

Any fees that were paid for 'lifetime' memberships are gone. That was revenue for the previous business (remember John was running this as a business). Current ownership received none of those fees. 

If you don't like what has happened to the site, it is certainly your right to have an opinion. But remember that in the overall scheme of things, you are a guest here. Posting a single comment voicing your displeasure is an option, but after that, there is not much more you can do. Continuing to whine about it, trying to find ways to get around it… not gonna work. And it begins to look childish and petty. 

Finally, I can't believe that there have been any negative comments about John. He put his heart and soul into this site, probably made much MUCH more of a sacrifice than any of you would even begin to understand. Both in time and money. He deserves nothing less than our complete gratitude. Stop with the negative comments, or any that question his decisions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Finally, I can't believe that there have been any negative comments about John. He put his heart and soul into this site, probably made much MUCH more of a sacrifice than any of you would even begin to understand. Both in time and money. He deserves nothing less than our complete gratitude. Stop with the negative comments, or any that question his decisions. " Amen, Brother Oakbridge. John was a good and honorable mayor here in ehMacLand.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Not sure where you get your figures from Oakbridge. You can run a forum for MUCH less than that (but of course you could also spend that much and more if you choose to do so), so you're not wrong, but there are a lot of options that don't require a $3k a year investment to keep the doors open. Do you think that the VS guys have a $3k/year dedicated server running for this forum? If they do they are not maximizing their revenue streams by any stretch of the imagination. And they certainly don't seem to spend much in the way of labour hours working on the forum or participating within the community (also something that I think it essential for building a good online community). Forum admins need to be accessible and open to listening to requests and making things work for the community they are serving. Otherwise you get this sort of stuff.

Secondly I fully support what you say about John. He poured a lot of himself into this forum and if anything I'm a bit sad to see all his hard work being abused. Reasonable ads are one thing, but scraping the text and adding links to ebay auctions and who-knows-what-else ... I feel strongly that this is not something he would have done or approved of I'm sure (not that any of this is his fault or that he has any further say into this sort of thing here, it's just reality of a for-profit venture).

Lastly most "good" communities are all about the community and providing the service to them, not about the business plan. When they become about the business plan they usually lose something in the transfer. That said if you can do both more power to you, but I can tell you it's incredibly rare to have both.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't have any real negative things to say about John. I simply said that with all due respect I thought it was a mistake to sell it. Well, to whom he sold it to anyway.

A small forum wouldn't cost 3 grand a year to run. You could easily run it on a VPS on liquid web (which is where this -was- run) the VPS's start at 60US/month.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I hear you, Oakbridge, and up until about a week ago I had no issue with the new ownership, even if they seem to be conspicuous by their absence. However, I DO have an issue with people twisting the words I post to their ad-vantage without my consent or even knowledge. It's sneaky and not at all what I understood the spirit of this site to be about. I am quite willing to stay here but I want the new owners to find a better way to get ad revenue than by literally putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gerk said:


> No idea, maybe he did. Either way it's still deadsville. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As for the 25 members angry, how many *active* ehmac members do you think there are now?


Hardly any, at this point. Perhaps 50? The site revenue depends almost entirely, I suspect, of non-members visiting and clicking on links. It would probably continue to exist simply as an archive of old posts and ad hosting site, even if people stopped posting altogether.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Gerk said:


> Not sure where you get your figures from Oakbridge. You can run a forum for MUCH less than that (but of course you could also spend that much and more if you choose to do so), so you're not wrong, but there are a lot of options that don't require a $3k a year investment to keep the doors open. Do you think that the VS guys have a $3k/year dedicated server running for this forum? If they do they are not maximizing their revenue streams by any stretch of the imagination. And they certainly don't seem to spend much in the way of labour hours working on the forum or participating within the community (also something that I think it essential for building a good online community). Forum admins need to be accessible and open to listening to requests and making things work for the community they are serving. Otherwise you get this sort of stuff.





groovetube said:


> A small forum wouldn't cost 3 grand a year to run. You could easily run it on a VPS on liquid web (which is where this -was- run) the VPS's start at 60US/month.


I love how people always question the expenses required to run a business. If any of you feel that you can easily do this for next to nothing… well pretend I'm from Missouri… show me!

EhMac has not been a "small forum" for a very lomg time. I believe that this is currently being run on Invisionpower. You can either buy a software license for a few hundred dollars with some of the options (and pay for your own hardware/collocation) or host it with them. Hosting it with them would run into hundreds per month which easily hits a few thousand per year. Run it yourself and you've got the costs of maintaining hardware, the software fees, renewals, etc. plus collocation fees for the server. 

Either way you should be paying other fees like speaking with a lawyer to make sure your contacts, term and conditions, etcetera have you covered. An accountant to make sure you've covered your tax situation. Fees for a business bank account. Fees to register the domain. Various other business expenses. They add up quickly. 

And if you want a Forum Admin to be responsive, someone must be being paid to be the Forum Admin, so now there are wages to consider. 

The costs to run ehMac for a year could easily reach $3,000 per year.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Hardly any, at this point. Perhaps 50? The site revenue depends almost entirely, I suspect, of non-members visiting and clicking on links. It would probably continue to exist simply as an archive of old posts and ad hosting site, even if people stopped posting altogether.





Oakbridge said:


> I just did a quick search of the membership. There are only 500 members who have a) more than 100 posts and b) have posted since May 2012.


There's your answer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> There's your answer.


It depends on your definition of an "active member." Certainly someone who posts twice a week on average is "active" by definition if they continue to post at that rate. I'm not sure a site could survive if every member were that sparing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> I love how people always question the expenses required to run a business. If any of you feel that you can easily do this for next to nothing… well pretend I'm from Missouri… show me!
> 
> EhMac has not been a "small forum" for a very lomg time. I believe that this is currently being run on Invisionpower. You can either buy a software license for a few hundred dollars with some of the options (and pay for your own hardware/collocation) or host it with them. Hosting it with them would run into hundreds per month which easily hits a few thousand per year. Run it yourself and you've got the costs of maintaining hardware, the software fees, renewals, etc. plus collocation fees for the server.
> 
> ...


Agreed if the site is a one-off. However, if you just add it to the VerticalScope stable, the incremental costs become negligible.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> I love how people always question the expenses required to run a business. If any of you feel that you can easily do this for next to nothing… well pretend I'm from Missouri… show me!
> 
> EhMac has not been a "small forum" for a very lomg time. I believe that this is currently being run on Invisionpower. You can either buy a software license for a few hundred dollars with some of the options (and pay for your own hardware/collocation) or host it with them. Hosting it with them would run into hundreds per month which easily hits a few thousand per year. Run it yourself and you've got the costs of maintaining hardware, the software fees, renewals, etc. plus collocation fees for the server.
> 
> ...


Seriously? I -do- run VB forums and have admin-ed on one for several years that sees about 15-30 members at a time (several hundred very active members) as well as hundreds of guests browsing, and that one costs about 400/year to host, it's just at the point where it needs to be moved to a liquidweb host (where this -was-) for about 60-100US/month. A good VPS.

This place seems to see about 10 to 40 at most members at a time. That is not, a really really busy forum!

And no, this is not ivisionpower, it is a VB forum, and quite an old version that hasn't been updated or paid for in years.

You do not need a dual processor dedicated box to run this place, unless it doubles in traffic.

I have a number of fast dedicateds for clients running at around 3k/year, and that would be overkill for this place.

What I don't discount, is the sweat equity of running a place. That, I know only too well.

Here's an example of a truly busy forum that would need a good fast box to run.

Canadian Store Deals, Coupons, and Sale Promotions - RedFlagDeals.com

note how well laid out the ads are, and, the lack of those scammy ad links.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Agreed if the site is a one-off. However, if you just add it to the VerticalScope stable, the incremental costs become negligible.


Not necessarily. There may have been pre-existing contracts that were in place that the new owners were forced to fulfill. I can't remember if there was a downtime period when they switched ownership that would allow it to be moved to their servers. 

And they are looking for a return on the investment that they paid to purchase ehMac. 

I changed my search criteria to those members with 100 or more posts who have posted this year. The number drops down to 300. Move the dial to those who have posted in the month of May this year, and it drops down to 139. For argument's sake, let's say that 39 if those users have lifetime memberships and therefore are not currently contributing to the revenue stream for ehMac. That leaves 100 possible subscribing members. Even if every one if them was subscribing at the Silver level, the annual membership revenues would be $1825. 

Regardless of how much it costs, $1800 in revenue won't keep an entity in business for very long. Revenue must come from somewhere.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> Regardless of how much it costs, $1800 in revenue won't keep an entity in business for very long. Revenue must come from somewhere.


I would agree. I assumed it would come from the ugly ads alone. 

I've always been curious as to what the site sold for. Assuming even something like $10,000 I can't imagine it being a good investment.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ok so here it seems there is a new twist.

I saved my signature to be:

WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.

as many others have done but no matter how many times I do it it won't show up. Is anyone seeing it or is it that I just can't see it?

Anyone else having a hard time editing their signature? Is this some further meddling on the part of the new owners?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you're going to have to have waaay more traffic and getting them to click and buy to get something like those links to really bring in a significant amount of revenue.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Ok so here it seems there is a new twist.
> 
> I saved my signature to be:
> 
> ...


See it fine here. There seems to be a delay in updating.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Ok so here it seems there is a new twist.
> 
> I saved my signature to be:
> 
> ...


I believe i's something the owners are doing. My signature initially changed, then reverted back to the original, then eventually changed again.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> Not necessarily. There may have been pre-existing contracts that were in place that the new owners were forced to fulfill. I can't remember if there was a downtime period when they switched ownership that would allow it to be moved to their servers.
> 
> And they are looking for a return on the investment that they paid to purchase ehMac.
> 
> ...


You've basically explained the best reason not to buy a lifetime membership. If the current owner sells, the new owner sees none of that membership fee. So the new owner feels no obligation to the lifetime member. At any rate, I can live with the ads (and Adblock is a great Safari alternative for those who despise their tackiness), but inserting ads into a person's posts is another thing altogether. It's just wrong.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> See it fine here. There seems to be a delay in updating.





Macfury said:


> I believe i's something the owners are doing. My signature initially changed, then reverted back to the original, then eventually changed again.


It is showing up for me now. I have never encountered a "delay" when posting a change to my signature before the new owners. 

So it seems to me they are meddling with the code to insert a delay so that if you want to change your signature and then when you don't see it instantly (the way it used to be) maybe your will give up altogether and just leave your signature blank.

And still we hear nothing from TNO (the new owners)... it seems that they don't give a rat's a** about the long term members here and the hundreds of thousands of posts that we have made that contributed to the building of this place.

Hell, meet handcart.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> It is showing up for me now. I have never encountered a "delay" when posting a change to my signature before the new owners.
> 
> So it seems to me they are meddling with the code to insert a delay so that if you want to change your signature and then when you don't see it instantly (the way it used to be) maybe your will give up altogether and just leave your signature blank.
> 
> ...



Someone is showing up to delete additional threads regarding this issue and editing the name of this thread. Also, Mo showed up to tell us how unobtrusive the change is, since we don't need to see the hyperlinks ourselves.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Someone is showing up to delete additional threads regarding this issue and editing the name of this thread. Also, Mo showed up to tell us how unobtrusive the change is, since we don't need to see the hyperlinks ourselves.


Sorry MF I have been away for a while and haven't had the time to peruse all the relevant posts. Do you have a link to this Mo that you speak of?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Truthfully, I have no problem at all with monetizing a site. I've never thought the ads, even though I don't see them much, are a big problem. Make a site like this pay fo itself, and/or make money, isn't easy, and I don't for a minute think it's a bad idea.

While I think the ads are badly laid out, and it they actually laid this place out better could probably squeeze more ads (and you wouldn't even notice).

But this link thing, generally I see it on popular tech blogs etc., not a community like this one. Surely there's a better way to handle things without this kind of thing upsetting the very people that support this place.

You may be right in that this place has a huge wealth of posts we all contributed over the years, and the community now, doesn't matter much anymore. It's becoming a link farm.

And that's really too bad, considering what this place _was_. And it does make you think twice about really supporting and contributing to a forum like this in future.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Truthfully, I have no problem at all with monetizing a site. I've never thought the ads, even though I don't see them much, are a big problem. Make a site like this pay fo itself, and/or make money, isn't easy, and I don't for a minute think it's a bad idea.
> 
> While I think the ads are badly laid out, and it they actually laid this place out better could probably squeeze more ads (and you wouldn't even notice).
> 
> ...


Good post and just to add...

Maybe it is just my bad memory but when I see linking in posts they are generally in posts that were made by the publishers of a given site, not the content generated by members, but then again this is the only forum I frequent...

Since the owners don't post here I really can't ethically abide their essentially hijacking our posts for their own monetary gain. I didn't insert those links so they are fundamentally editing (via code) my post without my permission.

IMO that is fundamentally unethical.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature, the post is here:

http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-help-desk/103906-hyperlink-advertising.html#post1276890


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature, the post is here:
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-help-desk/103906-hyperlink-advertising.html#post1276890


Thank you Macfury. 

It is a lame excuse and tucked away in a thread. If Mo was truly sincere he would do what ehMax did before, start a separate thread on the matter and publicly announce the change.

He didn't do that but did exactly what fjnmusic said:



fjnmusic said:


> Sorry, Mo, but i*t is intrusive and worse than that, it is being done by stealth.* Forum users, who offer their advice on Apple products and many kinds of technology free of charge, thereby bringing you web page hits and by extension, advertising dollars, are *now having words put in their mouth and offering endorsements for products they may well not wish to endorse or be linked to specific ads they were never informed they would be associated with, directly or indirectly.* It's one thing if someone clicks on the word "iPod Touch" and gets taken to the Apple page or a Wikipedia entry. But the ones that have appeared in my posts take the user to a specific seller in eBay, for example. *You are taking advantage of me and other posters when you do this and worse, if DN hadn't brought the issue to our attention, I wouldn't even know about it. Your approach is not non-intrusive; it's blatant manipulation. You must stop this practice or risk alienating your regular contributors. No one likes false representation.*
> 
> I trust this matter will be resolved before the weekend is over. Thank you for your time and consideration.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Someone is showing up to delete additional threads regarding this issue and editing the name of this thread. Also, Mo showed up to tell us how unobtrusive the change is, since we don't need to see the hyperlinks ourselves.


Isn't that congenial of him? By the way, I changed the title of this thread after the "WTF" was unceremoniously removed.

iPod Nano iPod Nano iPod Nano


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Isn't that congenial of him? By the way, I changed the title of this thread after the "WTF" was unceremoniously removed.
> 
> iPod Nano iPod Nano iPod Nano



Yes, I was referring to the WTF removal.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Yes, I was referring to the WTF removal.


WTF was up with that? I thought the universal abbreviation for Wednesday Thursday Friday was entirely suitable, considering that's when the ad-links issue came to consciousness.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

With all the talk about signatures, I decided to look at mine. I found that I could not change it. All the other points in 'about me' have a yellow pencil to indicate editing ability but my sig. doesn't. Any thoughts?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not sure what you mean by 'yellow pencil'??

Click on user CP and you should see this, then edit signature. No pencil stuff at all for me.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Thanks Don. Worked like a charm.
I was clicking on my Avatar and it goes to Aurora's Profile. Then there are four headings. About Me, Statistics, Friends and Contact Info. In the About Me, you can click on edit. That's when the yellow pencils show up. I could click on everything to change except the sig. 
Thanks again.


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

Gt, I borrowed your sig as a test, hoping you have no issue with it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure, borrow away. Though not sure how well written it is


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

just need to see how long until it takes effect.

edit, about 3-4 minutes


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

They don't know who they're messing with. Teehee!


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

kelman said:


> Gt, I borrowed your sig as a test, hoping you have no issue with it.


Me too.

I love a hay-ride.

But the critical me just won't shut the Hell up!!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

winwintoo said:


> They don't know who they're messing with. Teehee!


Can't help but notice our two resident experts on sin and science, Bryanc and MacGuiver, have been noticeably absent from these discussions. Perhaps they are the new owners.....

:beejacon:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sin and science.

Great name for a new forum.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Can't help but notice our two resident experts on sin and science, Bryanc and MacGuiver, have been noticeably absent from these discussions. Perhaps they are the new owners.....
> 
> :beejacon:


Someone's around, as the number of online members often don't match the number of names online.

I don't think -we- have the ability to be here invisibly


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

groovetube said:


> Someone's around, as the number of online members often don't match the number of names online.
> 
> I don't think -we- have the ability to be here invisibly


I believe you are correct sir.

Another signature roll-back overnight, for me anyway. *sigh*

Silly wabbit. :baby:


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

I need to point out that the two games I play in 'everything else, eh' seemed to refresh quicker this morning than in days past. Not sure if all the tinkering that seems to go on behind the scenes has made this possible but I'll see if it continues or was just a fluke.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Sig test.

I have found old posts with no signature at all (while deleting old posts). It seems to me formerly sindatures backfilled so this is a test to see what will be linked.....??


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Oakbridge said:


> I love how people always question the expenses required to run a business. If any of you feel that you can easily do this for next to nothing… well pretend I'm from Missouri… show me!
> 
> EhMac has not been a "small forum" for a very lomg time. I believe that this is currently being run on Invisionpower. You can either buy a software license for a few hundred dollars with some of the options (and pay for your own hardware/collocation) or host it with them. Hosting it with them would run into hundreds per month which easily hits a few thousand per year. Run it yourself and you've got the costs of maintaining hardware, the software fees, renewals, etc. plus collocation fees for the server.
> 
> ...


LOL. Did you actually _read_ any of the other stuff posted? Like where GT pointed out that you can get a VPS starting at $60/mnth at liquidweb (and that in fact ehmac at least used to be hosted there). There are even cheaper ways to host this forum as well ... while there was a lot of huff and puff at one point about it being a very big forum and taking up a lot of resources, it's honestly not that big of a forum and shouldn't really require that much in the way of resources. 

In terms of not being a "small forum" it really depends on what your criteria is ... there are maybe 50-60 active members and much less than half of them post all day long every day. Yes there are a lot of signups and inactive members, but honestly this is not really that "big" of a site in terms of resource requirements. This forum could totally be hosted on a shared web package ... meaning that VS could be hosting ALL of their forums on that single $60/mnth VPS ... so you could take that cost and potentially split it a lot of ways.

Also I guess you can't read the footer of the site ... this site doesn't run invision power board (or "Invisionpower" as you call it), it runs VB with an SEO addon. So you not only got the software it's running incorrect, but you got the name of the incorrect software incorrect ... your credibility is going down the tubes here 

"Should" and "do" are totally different things here. So you're saying it "could" cost $3k a year based on what you "should" do to run a forum. They obviously have not spoken to a lawyer about the T&C because they are blatantly breaking them (as others have pointed out earlier in this thread). Their admin is never here, so it doesn't seem like they are paying him much to run this forum. As for a business bank account I'm pretty sure that they have one (and they still need only one across all the different forums they run). And same goes for the taxes/accountant situation -- take that accountant's fee and spread it across all of their different forums they own and run and the price suddenly is not so high any more. As for the forum admin he probably also doubles as their IT guy so take his slary and split it between all the sites he admins and all the time he spends doing IT stuff for the company and build your costing from that figure ...

So even at $60/mnth that's $720/year in hosting fees (and I really, really don't think they have a VPS just for this forum so that's a very high estimate) .. that leaves $2280 to cover on your $3k/year expenses, so if they are paying that much money for a _portion_ of the bank account, accountant, lawyer, etc, they are doing things wrong.

P.S. In terms of costs to run a business ... well I do run a business, and part of what I do is to manage and host sites just like this, so I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp on the hard costs here. And yes I do have a lawyer, accountant, bank account and all of those other associated fees tied to my business and I could host this forum for a LOT less than $3k/year even if you include a part of all of those yearly type fees as a cost, and in fact I host much bigger forums that this for some of my clients.

Is that "show me" enough for you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gerk said:


> LOL. Did you actually _read_ any of the other stuff posted? Like where GT pointed out that you can get a VPS starting at $60/mnth at liquidweb (and that in fact ehmac at least used to be hosted there). There are even cheaper ways to host this forum as well ... while there was a lot of huff and puff at one point about it being a very big forum and taking up a lot of resources, it's honestly not that big of a forum and shouldn't really require that much in the way of resources.
> 
> In terms of not being a "small forum" it really depends on what your criteria is ... there are maybe 50-60 active members and much less than half of them post all day long every day. Yes there are a lot of signups and inactive members, but honestly this is not really that "big" of a site in terms of resource requirements. This forum could totally be hosted on a shared web package ... meaning that VS could be hosting ALL of their forums on that single $60/mnth VPS ... so you could take that cost and potentially split it a lot of ways.
> 
> ...


So figure $800 tax-in. How much would you charge per month to manage this forum? $175?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Someone a few pages back mentioned that links to a place selling ethnic clothing appeared in their posts.

The poster's moniker appears to be ethnic so did the links appear based on the name? If so, isn't that "ethnic profiling"? Isn't that illegal? Could the poster sue? Should we all be offended?

If the links appeared based on the username, I wonder what links are appearing based on my username?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

As promised I have not visited this site since last Friday. Since then I see the owners blocked that portion of my signature which clearly expresses my displeasure at: Having my posts altered in such a way as to make it appear that I endorse businesses that I do not endorse. I have re-worked this part of my signature and since the owners are not willing to forego altering my posts, I expect them to respect my efforts to make clear that their ads within my post are not inserted or endorsed by me.

I know we have some members that honestly believe business can do no wrong, but inserting links into my posts, and in some cases even into signatures is beyond tacky. 

If you want to know how bad things have gotten visit the site on a Windoze box using Exploder. If that had been my first view of ehMac I would never have signed in at all. That may even explain why as some members move on others are not replacing them.

When this thread began there was no direct mention in the sign up blurb covering inserting ad links into members posts. I posted the only line that came close back on post # 22 of this thread.

Even if the owners have now reworked the fine print in an attempt to cover their a55e5, there has been no direct communication that this intrusion is has been added. 

I am currently still rethinking my own participation. I will see if my revised signature remains in place and go from there.

Perhaps the ownership will back off. Otherwise I hope one of our website people will start up a viable alternative Canadian Mac website.

FWIW FasGas reworked one of our local service stations. Consumer pressure forced them to revise their pre-pay cash policy. They went back to pumping for the customer. 

This site has absolutely nothing without its members. Obviously this issue has ticked off more than a few of us. Perhaps they will listen, perhaps as MF has suggested they are a business and will go with the screw u attitude.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Oakbridge said:


> Not necessarily. There may have been pre-existing contracts that were in place that the new owners were forced to fulfill. I can't remember if there was a downtime period when they switched ownership that would allow it to be moved to their servers.
> 
> And they are looking for a return on the investment that they paid to purchase ehMac.
> 
> ...


It is ok to have ads all around the site but to take a word in someone's post and put a link to it is just not right. Where does it stop? Change your link in your sig to somewhere else other than your site? 

We are not bloggers getting paid by a site to write posts which can then use our posts to hyperlink to. The forum part of this site is different. This site has a bloggers part which don't think anyone writes for. Just don't know why it has never been taken advantage of. Other sites have taken off with some work. This site could be so much more if a little effort was put to it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Another thought here. 

As GT is pointing out in his sig, supposedly our posts are our own views, and by implication belong to us. Which makes the ad disclaimers some of us have chosen to insert absolutely vital as we have no idea where those links might lead.

Since clearly our posts are no longer our own, does this mean; Where we have included photos or other attachments, is the posters' ownership similarly compromised?

I would really appreciate a clear, definitive answer to that question.

If the ownership does respect implied copyrights, are they willing to commit to that over the long haul, or is that too subject to change without prior notice?

I will post no further photos until this is properly clarified. If this is not addressed in a timely manner I will start removing all such attachments.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Hmmm. Feeling conflicted. 

I was just about to upload something funny I found over the weekend to the visually humorous thread, but felt somewhat like a stooge for doing it, and not in a funny way. 

I wish to share and stay connected with the friends I've made here, but in light of recent developments, feel significantly less motivated to contribute to this site.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Macfury said:


> So figure $800 tax-in. How much would you charge per month to manage this forum? $175?


I personally just do hourly stuff, so if a forum is setup properly and doesn't run into issues usually much less than that.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

KC4 said:


> Hmmm. Feeling conflicted.
> 
> I was just about to upload something funny I found over the weekend to the visually humorous thread, but felt somewhat like a stooge for doing it, and not in a funny way.
> 
> I wish to share and stay connected with the friends I've made here, but in light of recent developments, feel significantly less motivated to contribute to this site.


Yep agreed, and this is exactly what the current management is promoting with the way they are running things. It's no longer about the community, it's about _harvesting_ what the community provides them (and not a thought for giving back to the community). That's pretty much the opposite of what Mr Mayor had always intended here -- he was always about giving back as much as possible to to community.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I would like a clear explanation of the new changes and how we are affected by them. Weekend's up, Mo, and you have been noticeably silent on the subject.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Heh this is interesting ... when reading the privacy policy this is what I end up with (it's truncated and missing some important information):

So if you want to opt-out of third-party ad servers from sending and reading cookies on your computer you have to (*mumble mumble you can't do it because it gets cut off*)

So I wonder what other bits we are missing from the privacy statement? Hard to say, maybe there's a hidden clause that they will take out words and then link them to questionable content but we can't actually read that part of things.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

KC4 said:


> Hmmm. Feeling conflicted.
> 
> I was just about to upload something funny I found over the weekend to the visually humorous thread, but felt somewhat like a stooge for doing it, and not in a funny way.
> 
> I wish to share and stay connected with the friends I've made here, but in light of recent developments, feel significantly less motivated to contribute to this site.


i also feel conflicted. I have begun the tedious process of deleting the contend of my posts. If the new owners are going to sell my words, as it were, without my permission or without remuneration to me, then I am going to do my best to see to it that they have nothing to sell!!!! 



Gerk said:


> ...... That's pretty much the opposite of what Mr Mayor had always intended here -- he was always about giving back as much as possible to to community.


I am not inclined to be nearly so charitable as some others when it comes to the EX-mayor.... 

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, JOHN!!!  

I think it is indefensible that he did not know the track record of the RECTAL SPHINCTERS he sold us out to. John had been looking for ways to monetize ehMac for years and he was(is) a smart guy. It just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth the way he came on as if the new owners, the RECTAL SPHINCTERS, wouldn't change things!!!  in fact he implied they would fix things like the classifieds...

Ah well.... Stasis is a largely non-existent state.  

Now taking offers on an ehMac souvenir mug, formerly known as a lifetime membership....


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

"RECTAL SPHINCTERS" good one, I really like that.
Would that qualify as an 'acronym' or a 'pseudonym' ?


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Two interesting anagrams for Vertical Scope (one applicable one not so much):

Special Covert
Practices Love


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

jamesB said:


> "RECTAL SPHINCTERS" good one, I really like that.
> Would that qualify as an 'acronym' or a 'pseudonym' ?


Call it a "term of endearment"............  :clap:


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Gerk said:


> LOL. Did you actually _read_ any of the other stuff posted? Like where GT pointed out that you can get a VPS starting at $60/mnth at liquidweb (and that in fact ehmac at least used to be hosted there). There are even cheaper ways to host this forum as well ... while there was a lot of huff and puff at one point about it being a very big forum and taking up a lot of resources, it's honestly not that big of a forum and shouldn't really require that much in the way of resources.
> 
> In terms of not being a "small forum" it really depends on what your criteria is ... there are maybe 50-60 active members and much less than half of them post all day long every day. Yes there are a lot of signups and inactive members, but honestly this is not really that "big" of a site in terms of resource requirements. This forum could totally be hosted on a shared web package ... meaning that VS could be hosting ALL of their forums on that single $60/mnth VPS ... so you could take that cost and potentially split it a lot of ways.
> 
> ...


Did you read where I questioned whether there were previous financial commitments that the new owners must honour? We don't know the entire picture, and probably never will.

Let's suppose that I'm looking at the high end of the scale, and you're looking at the low end of the scale. It's probably someplace in the middle. I know that there are a bunch of people on here that are upset, and in some cases they have a right to be upset. I do see both sides of the argument. But there are also a bunch of people on here that are (in the books of the new owners) getting a free ride. Well to those people, all I can say is that you get what you pay for.

Even if your figure is closer to being the actual figure, do you really think that ehMac is currently generating even $800 per year in memberships? I seriously doubt that it is.

And nowhere in your figures do you include the cost of purchasing ehMac. The new owners are not planning on simply writing that off, they want to make a return on their investment. 

(BTW, my comments about "invision power board" were based on some information I found in a quick search of ehMac regarding what was used to power the site)


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

rgray said:


> I am not inclined to be nearly so charitable as some others when it comes to the EX-mayor....
> 
> TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, JOHN!!!
> 
> ...


You are forgetting one very important point. It was his site! You were/are a guest here. If you bought a membership, you helped pay the bills at the time. That did not give you a vote (although John was pretty democratic as far as I can remember with the way the site ran). It did not give you shares. He did not have to consult with you on any business decisions. 

Yes he created a community. Yes I miss that old community. Yes I agree that some of the changes made since the new owners took over are just plain bad, not to mention terrible business decisions (some look like something I'd expect from Windows people).

But in the grand scheme of things, do I really care what links are created from words in my posts? Nah. There are far too many more important things to worry about. I have credit cards, and loyalty cards, and I shop online, and I visit web sites who I know track me. It's exhausting to even begin to think about the virtual footprint I leave on a daily basis. 

It was a beautiful weekend in Southern Ontario. I got out on my bike twice preparing for the Ride for Heart (msg me if you'd like to sponsor me). The 'Western Office' has been officially opened for the summer (in other words the leaves have grown in sufficiently to allow me to work outside on the patio) and it looks like there are new staff members in the form of a chipmunk and bunny that we haven't seen before. The puppy is enjoying his first taste of spring/summer weather and has me walking a lot more (4-5 km per day on average). The Jays have even won a few. Other than my Blackhawks looking terrible in the last two games, life is pretty good overall. The changes to ehMac are very low on the totem pole of life. At least my life. 

And quite honestly, when I think about the type of person who might be foolish enough to purchase something by following a link made out of a word in one of my posts... Well let's just say that I probably wouldn't be sharing a conversation with any of them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I am going to disagree with the free ride comment.

This site consists entirely of the comments and contributions of its members. Without the members there is nothing to monetize. 

If you are going to claim that a posting is entirely the responsibility of the poster, then inserting links against the posters will and without their direct permission is a very bad idea. To do so within the signature area is even more appalling. An example would be if: "Money Works Consultants" in Steve Smiths sig, generated a link that sent viewers off to one of his competitors.

Still waiting for clarification on the images question. While I willingly have shared my images with ehMac members, that in no way implies that I am in any way sacrificing or compromising my right of ownership


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Oakbridge said:


> You are forgetting one very important point. It was his site! You were/are a guest here. If you bought a membership, you helped pay the bills at the time. That did not give you a vote (although John was pretty democratic as far as I can remember with the way the site ran). It did not give you shares. He did not have to consult with you on any business decisions.
> 
> Yes he created a community. Yes I miss that old community. Yes I agree that some of the changes made since the new owners took over are just plain bad, not to mention terrible business decisions (some look like something I'd expect from Windows people).
> 
> ...


Can't argue with anything said.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> You are forgetting one very important point. It was his site! You were/are a guest here. If you bought a membership, you helped pay the bills at the time. That did not give you a vote (although John was pretty democratic as far as I can remember with the way the site ran). It did not give you shares. He did not have to consult with you on any business decisions.
> 
> Yes he created a community. Yes I miss that old community. Yes I agree that some of the changes made since the new owners took over are just plain bad, not to mention terrible business decisions (some look like something I'd expect from Windows people).


You're right we were/are guests here and when John was running it, but please keep in mind that without us, there would be no ehmac.ca.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> You are forgetting one very important point. It was his site! You were/are a guest here.


I disagree. Members are not guests but community members. It's not a hotel, it's a home of sorts.



Oakbridge said:


> If you bought a membership, you helped pay the bills at the time.


If it was a lifetime membership than that needed to be ethically grandfathered into the sale agreement. It should be good for life, even beyond sale. I'm not sure if hyperlinking specifically breaks that deal any more than it breaks the agreement with every other member.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Most interesting. I am no longer able to change or edit my signature.

In light of the current changes, I was going to add a paragraph re-asserting my rights to my own photo images. 

Being unable to do so, I shall as in the very near future start removing all of these images from the ehMac site.

My apologies to those of you who have enjoyed viewing some of my work but the current status is simply not acceptable.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

winwintoo said:


> You're right we were/are guests here and when John was running it, *but please keep in mind that without us, there would be no ehmac.ca.*


Exactly!!! And that is something John knew and displayed his appreciation for time and again....

I disagreed with John on many occasions but the great thing was that I could PM him and actually get him to be "personally on the line", the same cannot be said for the current ownership/administration.

This is the way it is now:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





Since TNO we are all "in the dark".


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> ................... it's a home of sorts.


Sort of a "group home"......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes we're guests. But as I've learned from running forums, the members, -are- the forum.

Truthfully, the owners can do whatever they like with the forum. But that doesn't mean, the members have to like it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

OK this is getting really weird.

My signature has reverted to what it was before they started blocking part of it. This morning I had deleted that paragraph and replaced it with a slightly more emphatic one. That change had taken and now has disappeared.

So in my profile the sig shows the revised version, but the older one is showing in my posts.

No idea what is going on!

EDIT: Just logged out and the ad links seem to have disappeared. Won't jump to any conclusions yet. Just hoping the owners decided the extra revenue was not worth the hassle.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I disagree. Members are not guests but community members. It's not a hotel, it's a home of sorts.
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a lifetime membership than that needed to be ethically grandfathered into the sale agreement. It should be good for life, even beyond sale. I'm not sure if hyperlinking specifically breaks that deal any more than it breaks the agreement with every other member.


My point regarding Lifetime memberships is that none of the monies that they paid ever went into the hands of the new owners. I'm sure that the membership status was grandfathered into the sale agreement, but the lifetime members must understand that they are not contributing to the current financial state of the site. 



groovetube said:


> Yes we're guests. But as I've learned from running forums, the members, -are- the forum.
> 
> Truthfully, the owners can do whatever they like with the forum. But that doesn't mean, the members have to like it.


Exactly!

And when you don't like something, you stop using it, or you leave. 

Just to be clear here, I'm not in favour of the changes that have been made. As a small business owner, I think that they are mistakes and are leading the site to the brink of extinction. Which is not good for business. 

But, and this is a big but. The behaviour of some of the members is also leading the site to the brink of extinction. I said this in another thread. Think about what you would feel like if you were to walk into the site as a new Mac user, discovering ehMac for the first time and read what members have been posting over the past few days. You'd hit 'back' on your browser and never return. That's not good either. 

Saying the members are the forum is like looking at a sporting event or concert or live theatre and saying the audience is the 'show'. Without one, can you have the other? Can you even have one without the other? Technically you can but without participation from the audience, the event is not the same.

Where I believe that I differ in my opinion from most is that I don't believe I have any form of ownership in the site. I'm getting a little tired of hearing "it's our site, they can't do that". Well yes they can, and they will if they choose to. None of us 'owns' ehMac, the new owners do, and if they decide to do something, it is up to me, and me alone to determine if I want to either continue under the new changes, or stop participating. 

It's like your favourite pub, coffee shop, restaurant. The people sitting in those seats are what gives the place it's atmosphere. Just as the members of a web forum give the site it's atmosphere. But if the owners sell, and the new owners change the format/decor to something that you don't like, are you going to continue to come by?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> You're right we were/are guests here and when John was running it, but please keep in mind that without us, there would be no ehmac.ca.


Yes there would be, perhaps not in the same format, but it will be here. It probably won't have the same atmosphere, but as an entity it will still be here. 

Based on the quick searches I did on the weekend, the number of active members has dropped drastically in the past year. Yet the site still remains. 

I don't like where this is going anymore than anyone else, but the truth is that the current ehMac is not what it once was.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> I don't like where this is going anymore than anyone else, but the truth is that the current ehMac is not what it once was.


I looked back at some of the early years and it was a brawling free-for-all. Much more tame now.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I can't imagine a hyper-link to Amazon or eBay is going to bring in that much revenue anyway. Why alienate your user-base for such a tacky means of earning extra revenue?


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I can't imagine a hyper-link to Amazon or eBay is going to bring in that much revenue anyway. Why alienate your user-base for such a tacky means of earning extra revenue?


Yeah next they will implement previews when you hover over a hyperlink in an attempt to get more revenue. Crap shouldn't give them bad ideas.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I doubt it's big numbers. I've seen some of the actual numbers based on really big traffic, and it isn't huge, considering how much traffic they got.

Not sure how many people come here, click one of those links and actually buys something.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Hmm - some of the hyperlinks are still there (mostly in people's sigs, which is odd) but there don't seem to be any in the posts anymore.

As for the costs of running a forum - jumping in a little late to this debate, I know - but we run techsurvivors.net on a shoestring. Granted, we have nowhere near the number of active members, or the number of posts, but certainly it's possible to run something on a completely volunteer basis as we do. Our hosting is $50/yr., we have a lifetime license for Invision Powerboard (that sort of license doesn't exist any more, however, so some other option would have to be considered if cost was an issue) and our two domain names another $20/yr. We (the admins/mods) take it in turns to pay. Our hosting is on a shared server and I do realize that if we got a lot busier we'd need more space and more bandwidth, which would cost more. We've never considered taking ads - though we're contacted all the time by those offering us all manner of deals etc. 

As for membership, unlike MacDoc who requires an email, we're at least partially automated. We do hand approve our members once they click the "join" button; we all (the mods/admins - there are 6 of us, soon to be 7) get the email when someone signs up and the first person to get to it runs the prospective member through stopforumspam.com and any other searches deemed necessary. We also have a "skill-testing" question to defeat the bots. Works very well and is surprisingly efficient given that we hail from several different time zones and all tend to check in several times a day. Rarely does a member have to wait more than an hour or two to be approved.

Anyway - I'm sure there are several models to choose from - but the current model at ehMac seems a long way from the original intent of the forum. I never got the feeling that John did this primarily for the money - he had a full-time job elsewhere. However, TNO definitely ARE in it for the money and not much, if anything else. Unfortunately, in my experience, forums that are run strictly for money by commercial entities rarely last, if they were not created that way in the first place. Think...MacFixit (Ted Landau sold the site to Techtracker in 2000 and things started to go downhill, with many of the long-time mods getting the boot etc., and in 2008 CNET purchased it from TT and pretty much killed it off). NoWonder was purchased by ePeople in 2000 and started trying to charge for help - it died.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You're far better off monetizing a tech blog, with commenters etc., doing this on a forum, will kill it and they simply become link farms.

I'd just like to see all this go somewhere where the original intent is preserved. I don't want to directly mod members ( in case a couple here are worried about that) and prefer to rely on a mod team for consensus. (One thing I've learned from adminning a place)

If something were to come close to breaking even, that'd be bonus.

Monetizing a place like this needs to go in the apple insider direction. Otherwise, it's a loser's game IMHO.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Another forum rather upset at possible ownership on member content...

Permission NOT granted to Vertiscope - Havanese Forum : Havanese Forums

I'm guessing, they're quite used to weathering complaints.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm gathering that there isn't actually a significant amount of money to be made, after expenses, on a site such as this. It doesn't actually sell anything other than advertising on and around the member provided content. 

Perhaps with the already dwindling traffic on ehMac, setting it up a link-farm was just TNO's way of rendering the last bit of value from their failing purchase. If the site stumbles and caves under the new scenario, no big loss to them. It seemed to be heading into the ground anyway. It's just business.

I'd bet that TNO is not going to spend much "mo" time than they already have communicating with us to explain their position or plans. Why would they? Really?

For those requesting an explanation, justification, apology, reversal, or any of the like, including myself, I think our expectations are unrealistic and we are likely wasting our time. We can like it ..or lump it... or leave it. 

They may actually prefer that some leave to make it easier for them to do what they want to do next. Who knows what that is? I don't. 

It seems the links may have disappeared, but if so, for how long? 

The discussion about a new/alternate forum for us to gather and contribute is interesting but probably also unrealistic due to the fundamental issue stated in my first paragraph. Not enough money to be made to make it worthwhile.

Addendum: 
TNOs may also view this issue as a tempest in a teapot and believe that, sure, some may leave, but soon the rest will be back posting away about their favorite hamburger, or pet or telling jokes and so on.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Here's a very long thread (over 5 years, multiple pages) on a non-Vertical Scope forum about Vertical Scope. Interesting - has a former VS employee, defending the company. Lots of bad experiences though.

VerticalScope - Admin Zone Forums

Well worth reading - quite a lot of interesting info in those many pages.

Post #96 compares V$ (  ) to Walmart. Sounds about right.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

KC4 said:


> I'm gathering that there isn't actually a significant amount of money to be made, after expenses, on a site such as this. It doesn't actually sell anything other than advertising on and around the member provided content.
> 
> Perhaps with the already dwindling traffic on ehMac, setting it up a link-farm was just TNO's way of rendering the last bit of value from their failing purchase. If the site stumbles and caves under the new scenario, no big loss to them. It seemed to be heading into the ground anyway. It's just business.
> 
> ...


But KC, you don't HAVE to run a forum on a money-making basis. Obviously, it depends on the size, but you can have a decent-sized community with all volunteer mods/admins who share in the cost of hosting. We used to have 17 mods at Techsurvivors - that was a bit crazy, but it did work for quite a few years, until a major schism over politics made a a few of them march off in a huff.  Some others have retired, and one of our older founders died, but we've soldiered on and we have members that really care about one another. We run by consensus and nobody makes any money on it. Occasionally a member donates some money and we put it towards the hosting/domain registration.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Paddy said:


> But KC, you don't HAVE to run a forum on a money-making basis. Obviously, it depends on the size, but you can have a decent-sized community with all volunteer mods/admins who share in the cost of hosting. We used to have 17 mods at Techsurvivors - that was a bit crazy, but it did work for quite a few years, until a major schism over politics made a a few of them march off in a huff.  Some others have retired, and one of our older founders died, but we've soldiered on and we have members that really care about one another. We run by consensus and nobody makes any money on it. Occasionally a member donates some money and we put it towards the hosting/domain registration.


Yes, I know, Paddy, but as you've noted, there is always some schism or schiza happening, especially with a group of volunteers. 

Volunteers are awesome, I've headed and worked on many volunteer groups and task forces, but it requires a lot of work, dedication, organization, donations and time to make it work. And yes, some funds have to come in from somewhere, regularly and reliably, to keep up the bare bones of the system. Lifetime memberships are great, but when the funds dry up from that slice of the membership (who are probably providing a significant amount of traffic and content), where do you go from there? Advertisers. 

I do not want to be negative, but I am trying to be realistic.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It is, just business. I may not like it, and not think very much of it, but that's what they do. It sort of reminds me of those seo guys, that run link farms, it's a whole side of the internet I HATE. And I think everyone else hates it too.

I don't know what they think of the regular users here, perhaps we're just a pain in the arse, and the plan is just to get a pile more users, whoever good they are in, we don;t really matter much in the scheme of things (or they would have come in and joined the discussion). 

It ain't about the music anymore man. 


KC4 said:


> I'm gathering that there isn't actually a significant amount of money to be made, after expenses, on a site such as this. It doesn't actually sell anything other than advertising on and around the member provided content.
> 
> Perhaps with the already dwindling traffic on ehMac, setting it up a link-farm was just TNO's way of rendering the last bit of value from their failing purchase. If the site stumbles and caves under the new scenario, no big loss to them. It seemed to be heading into the ground anyway. It's just business.
> 
> ...


Lots of good forums run without making a lot of money. If the idea isn't to -make- money off the site, then it's fine. Volunteers like myself and other good diplomatic people to mod etc., hosting costs are not huge until your forum really gets much bigger than this one.

I think the mayors trouble was, he wasn't quite committed enough to building up the front end enough, he started, but tried to get the regulars here to join in on the front page, there wasn't enough integration from the front to the forum I though like say, appleinsider, or redflag etc. Those, are successful sites. But has nayone here checked out the forums in appleinsider? Full of just idiots. But, that's business.

I think there's a better way to strategize a site that does take a lot of thought and work if you're going to go that route and have grander plans, without having to resort to pawning people's posts in links.

I think the core here, for all it's warts, isn't about that, and that's why people are up in arms with the changes, and the fear of what's to come. We see all the horrendous news from other vertiscope forums and the problems they caused, and none of us want that here. At all.

If that's the case, then an alternative is in store. That doesn't mean no one will come here, but, this place likely, won't be about the tight community it once was I'm guessing.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Yes, I know, Paddy, but as you've noted, there is always some schism or schiza happening, especially with a group of volunteers.
> 
> Volunteers are awesome, I've headed and worked on many volunteer groups and task forces, but it requires a lot of work, dedication, organization, donations and time to make it work. And yes, some funds have to come in from somewhere, regularly and reliably, to keep up the bare bones of the system. Lifetime memberships are great, but when the funds dry up from that slice of the membership (who are probably providing a significant amount of traffic and content), where do you go from there? Advertisers.
> 
> I do not want to be negative, but I am trying to be realistic.


Well, yes and no...re: the schisms. We had one incident in 13 years (6 years ago, now) and that was it. The current group of mods get along extremely well. One thing that helps is that we DON'T allow political and religious discussions - we figure there are plenty of places online for those and we'd rather not have people getting into it tooth and nail, as they often do with discussions of that nature. Sure - it's fun to debate, but we've all seen it get nasty and personal and then those feelings get dragged over into tech discussions as well. You don't need quite as tough a hide at TS as you do at times here at ehMac. I've stayed out of the political discussions here, because if there is one thing I've learned, you can waste a lot of time and energy trying to change people's minds in online discussions, and it rarely has any effect.  Of course, even at Techsurvivors I'm fairly aware of people's political leanings - they're a pretty fair representation of the political spectrum just as they are here. We just don't get into it on the forum, though plenty of us have chatted and emailed back and forth for years and may discuss things there at will.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

On mine we tried, and closed the political forum down like 3 times, and I've sorted out huge messes more than once. Perhaps a bit of karma there... 

But we've had it rolling now for a while with few problems, we have a really fair mod who babysits it closely and gets in at the first sign of trouble. We had a few in that were just in to stir, once we got them to settle down and realize it wasn't productive (*cough* slap) things are just fine now. You can't have poll debates without a fair referee. It can't be someone left or right leaning, just a really fair referee.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

And they're back.tptptptp

They disappeared for most of Tuesday, giving at least some hope that the owners might have figured out that they won't have anything to monetize if they persist in along the current path of self-destruction. Now however they have returned. I suspect yesterdays holiday was mainly spent rewriting the Conditions agreement in an attempt to better cover their a55e5 but have really not bothered to check, since I don't care if they have inserted the proper language. My concern is that my posts are no longer entirely mine and may send unwary users in a direction I certainly did not intend.

NOTE: There is still no response from ownership guaranteeing they will respect posters rights to their own images. 

As much as I have enjoyed being part of the ehMac community, it is time to realize it has been sold "Down de ribber" and consider moving on.

Three more days I think should be sufficient time.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

In the ehMac.ca Rules, which one can see (not signed in, of course) if one clicks on "Register" there is a paragraph that reads:



> You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by ehMac. *ehMac uses technology from the company "Viglink" to monetize out-going links by inserting affiliate code.*


 (emphasis mine)

I wonder if that was added recently?? Having not looked at the rules in eons, I wouldn't know.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Paddy said:


> In the ehMac.ca Rules, which one can see (not signed in, of course) if one clicks on "Register" there is a paragraph that reads:
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I wonder if that was added recently?? Having not looked at the rules in eons, I wouldn't know.


That still doesn't address the notion that our posts are authored by us, and our own views, because they are inserting links to affiliates, _on our own words_.

This isn't quite right.

If there was an advertising footer to our posts, clearly marked so no one thinks it's ours, with links etc., that's a different story. But linking words authored by me, without my permission, isn't right. At all.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Paddy said:


> I wonder if that was added recently?? Having not looked at the rules in eons, I wouldn't know.


I would wager a guess that the part which reads...

_" ehMac uses technology from the company "Viglink" to monetize out-going links by inserting affiliate code."_

was added after VertigoScoop purchased the site, long after most members had ceased reading said rules.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jamesB said:


> I would wager a guess that the part which reads...
> 
> _" ehMac uses technology from the company "Viglink" to monetize out-going links by inserting affiliate code."_
> 
> was added after VertigoScoop purchased the site, long after most members had ceased reading said rules.


Like I said in another thread, it is change being enacted by stealth. You wouldn't even know about it if you didn't log out and check for yourself. I wouldn't be aware id Dennis Nedry hadn't made a point of disappearing himself. Before the Dilophosaurus got him anyway.

http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-help-desk/103906-hyperlink-advertising.html


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

The Viglink stuff has been around for a long time (way before VS purchased). That stuff is just intended to monetize pre-existing outgoing links. I know because I complained about them a couple of times when the Viglink servers were really slow and it was hard to get to any links clicked in forum posts. They are not (or at least were not) setup to scrape through the post text and insert new links to questionable things, which is what is happening right now. I read all of the agreements and statements I could find on the site and none of them state that VS will actively add links to our posts that we didn't put in there.


----------



## VSAdmin (Nov 5, 2012)

Hey all,


AN UPDATE:

We have removed hyperlink ads for users. You MUST be logged in as a registered user to avoid this.

Guests will still see the hyperlink ads, but if you are logged in as a user, you won't.

You probably noticed it that you no longer see it since last night. It seems like it was accidentally turned on for users, which it shouldn't be. It should only be seen by guests.

Mo


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> AN UPDATE:
> ...


Thanks Mo, for the clarification. The problem though isn't that we, as registered members see the links. The problem is that the links are added to our posts. We do not endorse the placement of the link and don't endorse the end result of clicking one of the links.

As some have previously posted, the addition of the links may go against the Terms of Service of this very site.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> AN UPDATE:
> ...


Mo, people are not upset because they see the hyperlinks. They're upset because hyperlinking violates the terms of service in which the author of each post is held responsible for the content they have posted. By inserting links into original content, you are making it appear that people are responsible for them and endorse them.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> AN UPDATE:
> ...


Good to hear from you on this, Mo. However, I as a registered user never did agree to have any of my words hyperlinked to anything without my permission. I think that is part that a great number of us are objecting to. Having ads appear in boxes around the page is one thing, but having ads appear within the text of what we write is crossing a line. It makes it appear that endorse a particular link when I don't. It is misrepresentational.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> AN UPDATE:
> ...


Mo, we're all complaining because we don't want hyperlinks attached to any of our words, *even if only seen by guests.*

I have never seen hyperlinked ads while logged in, but have complained about this. I have also explained to other people on this site that you don't see the ads if you are logged in, but non-members who are not logged in see them which 
a) hijacks my words to link to things without my permission (thus requiring a warning in my sig that I do not endorse the links)
b) makes ehMac look like a crappy spam-ridden link farm, which is not the community I signed up for nor would want to promote.

I'm generally pretty clear in my writing, and most others who have complained about this have also been quite clear.

So either you aren't actually reading the complaints, or you are being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> AN UPDATE:
> ...





Macified said:


> Thanks Mo, for the clarification. The problem though isn't that we, as registered members see the links. The problem is that the links are added to our posts. We do not endorse the placement of the link and don't endorse the end result of clicking one of the links.
> 
> As some have previously posted, the addition of the links may go against the Terms of Service of this very site.





fjnmusic said:


> Good to hear from you on this, Mo. However, I as a registered user never did agree to have any of my words hyperlinked to anything without my permission. I think that is part that a great number of us are objecting to. Having ads appear in boxes around the page is one thing, but having ads appear within the text of what we write is crossing a line. It makes it appear that endorse a particular link when I don't. It is misrepresentational.


The old do nothing and then claim we have listened to our users switcherooo!

We have long established since Dennis Nerdy left and gave us the heads up, "when logged in" the hypedup links were not visible, remember Dennis brought this situation to our attention, Now by "adding" the same feature we still have the same situation. To fool us once shame on Vertical Scope, try to fool us twice shame on MO.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Mo said:


> You probably noticed it that you no longer see it since last night. It seems like it was accidentally turned on for users, which it shouldn't be. It should only be seen by guests.
> Mo


Not quite true Mo, but I think you already knew this, we as logged in users never did see the links right from the beginning, as mentioned elsewhere it only came to our attention when a member requested his account be deleted.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It really does make the site look cheesy and scammy when you see it. I think it would scare off a lot of potentially good members (the good ones would take one look and disappear).

I know if I were checking out a forum, and saw links in people's posts everywhere my first thought would be, ah, no thanks.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm not leaving, voluntarily.

I'll continue to take dumps on the bosses desk, until I get his attention.

Oh, BTW, is "Mo" male or female, and do we know what it stands for?


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

Mo
Mainly oblivious?
I didn't turn off notifications but I'm not getting notified. Huh.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

The more I think about it the more I'm surprised we have not heard from the Mayor.
He is listed as a moderator of this site, but regardless I can't believe he is not aware of what is going on right now.
One would think he'd like the chance to address the negative statements made about him in this thread recently.
One has to wonder if the conditions of sale included a 'gag clause'?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Oh, BTW, is "Mo" male or female, and do we know what it stands for?


Mo' money?


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Further to my post above, anyone heard boo from any of the moderators on this problem, say like Chealion, Vexel, maybe Specklemind or qmark2000?
Are they all under some type of gag or maybe getting a kick back of sorts to not have an opinion of their own?
After all moderating is not to be confused with ignoring.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

kelman said:


> Mo
> 
> Mainly oblivious?


Sadly, anything but.



kelman said:


> I didn't turn off notifications but I'm not getting notified. Huh.


I don't need no stinkin' notifications. 

Mo should know that those interested will be here each and every day, twice on Sundays.



jamesB said:


> The more I think about it the more I'm surprised we have not heard from the Mayor.


A lot of assumptions following those words.

Perhaps they changed his password, so he can't get back in?

You have to consider the enema your facing.



Sonal said:


> Mo' money?


You are being overly kind Sonal.

I can think of some more graphic.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

If we ask for our account to be deleted does it automatically delete all of our posts as well? Or do we have to go and do that manually before hand?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> AN UPDATE:
> ...



Sorry, but for me this so misses the point. It doesn't matter that I can't see the links because of membership (or ad blockers, or whatever). 

What matters to me is that my words are being used as links without persmission or remuneration!! 

I am proceeding with the tedious process of deleting the content of my posts.

:-( :-(


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> If we ask for our account to be deleted does it automatically delete all of our posts as well? Or do we have to go and do that manually before hand?


no there isn't anyway in VB to delete a member and their posts. If members have the option to delete posts (likely soft delete as only admins generally have the power to hard delete) you'd have to do it manually.

Soft delete allows a mod (with those permissions) to view the original post before edits, and before deleting. Admins can also restore edits and/or deletes.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Can someone please outline the process for finding and deleting posts? Looks like many of us may be going down this road in the near future.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Click the search button at top.

Select Advanced Search.

Put in your username, top right.

Lower left display as posts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think the best you can do is edit out the post. Leave a period.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Thanks for the info. I sorted it out but am going one better than editing to a period. I will be taking the time to replace all of my posts with "the original text of this post has been deleted to avoid automatic link insertion by the forum owner".


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I just replaced the content with the word "deleted", I have too many posts t deal with and I am not interested in further dancing, skirmishing, with the SPHINCTERS....


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Face it everybody. EhMac as we knew it is long dead. The new owners are using the remains to host advertisers, hopefully attract more meat to attach parasitic little links and ads to and, ultimately, to render the last drop of juice, however unsavory, from it.

Visitors, members and posters with their every click are cooperatively animating the corpse, making it appear alive. That’s nice of us.

Of course it has begun to stink...but Vertical Scope won’t care...this seems to be their business model. Ride it any way they can until it has stopped wriggling and can’t provide another drop of revenue. 

It is possible that Vertical Scope cannot stop the link farm now, not without breaching contracts they may have struck with advertisers. Hmmm, let’s see...alienate a few members who have little or no rights on this site, or suffer the liabilities and penalties associated with breaching an agreement with a company that probably advertises on all of Vertical Scope’s sites? 

Of course Mo is being deliberately obtuse. We are being “handled”, if anyone hasn’t figured that out yet. Vertical Scope is not going to waste any time foolishly engaging any members in a discussion that would contemplate a change to their business model. Why would they? This site runs fine for a value-stripper business, with minimum attention from them. 

Long time members requesting that their account be deleted or disabled is not only laughably ineffective (see Groovetube's explanation above) but even though it may be a short term pain for Vertical Scope, it will more likely be a long term gain for them. Less noise and preexisting obligations for VS to endure/ignore. 

In a few weeks or less, this storm will have largely passed, ehMac might be a little lighter active membership wise, but that will be mostly a bonus for VS because the loss will be some of the pesky older guard who have left in a huff, and new fresh, innocent members will eventually replace them and not have any previous notions of rights or rules.

So we have a choice. Play in the new link farm with our remaining friends and suffer parasitic links attached to our words, or, play elsewhere.

Continually raging about the loss of our old ehMac community site and demanding that it return is just asking for a Frankensite, or at the least, helping animate it.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Macified said:


> Can someone please outline the process for finding and deleting posts? Looks like many of us may be going down this road in the near future.


Simple way...
click on your username in your avatar
select find more posts by ... 
then delete them one by one substituting anything but a blank space, most choose a period (.)


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

I'm pretty pissed with the recent changes here too.. I luckily only have a little over 500 posts in total so over the next few days I'll finish up on what I started tonight - finding my posts and deleting them. I'm leaving this in place of the earlier post ... 

To all the friends I've made here over the years I'd like to say thanks! Thanks for the info, insight and suggestions. Thanks for the support and the kind words, thanks for the laughs and finally thanks for being a great online community that I was happy and proud to be a part of.... even if I didn't post much I did read a great deal of what was posted here.

And to the new owner(s).... I do understand the need for revenue to offset the costs of keeping this thing afloat. What I object to is the sleazy way you used us to obtain that revenue. You have spoiled if not destroyed a good thing. You should be ashamed... sad thing is I know you are not in the least... am I right?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4 said:


> Face it everybody. EhMac as we knew it is long dead.


Agreed. The anger of the few remaining active members doesn't matter at all. Neither will reams of deletions or messages meant to embarrass VerticalScope, as much as those embarrassments are deserved.

There are millions of words left here from members who won't delete them, or who have left years ago. These will be enough of a corpse to reanimate with fresh links whether or not anyone posts here again.

I liked EhMac for what it was, and in the hands of VerticalScope, it can never return to that state. The degree of contempt for members displayed here recently has exhausted all goodwill they may have inherited and it's clear that the original owner no longer has any influence over the mess it's become.

Delete, leave, stay, or start a new forum... EhMac is gone.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Interestingly enough, something I didn't know, another forum I know of in the states, is owned by a company called iNet, they use a lot of the same language as vertical scope (terrible name btw) 'vertically leveraged communities' etc, much the same thing. 

The difference being, the ads are much better laid out, appearing less obtrusive, they don't use the scammy links (!!) and the people seem quite happy with it. So that tells me, they know how to, er, vertically leverage their communities with skill (and class) but clearly, VS seems to have some contempt for forums judging by how they handle things (or complete lack of experience it seems) and needs to learn from its mistakes.

But that's wishful thinking. Clearly, they don't give a rats ass.


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

jamesB said:


> Further to my post above, anyone heard boo from any of the moderators on this problem, say like Chealion, Vexel, maybe Specklemind or qmark2000?
> *Are they all under some type of gag or maybe getting a kick back of sorts to not have an opinion of their own?*
> After all moderating is not to be confused with ignoring.


Did you maybe think instead of assuming they are involved, that maybe real life responsibilities mean they don't come here very often anymore? Just because someone is listed as a mod doesn't mean they are active..

Common sense should come into play here, especially when people aren't commenting to defend themselves from childish comments like that..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

Garry said:


> Just because someone is listed as a mod doesn't mean they are active..


That's really odd, I was under the impression that being a moderator sort of meant you had a responsibility to keep an eye out and try to keep things on track etc.
Not just accept the title and then disappear when the going gets rough.
But then again, I tend to be old fashioned when it comes to rules and laws and the likes.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Trying to get the new owners' attention so they ill see the error of their ways is a lot like holding on to anger. Holding on to anger is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. Clearly, the new owners don't really care too much what happens here, which can be a blessing as well as a curse. I'm just going to carry on, knowing full well that there's an ad-link scam going on, but also knowing that it's not really going to affect my life that much. I would have preferred to have been asked first, but whatever. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water, and this is still a good site for Mac questions and the odd debate. I hope some of you will stick around, despite the crass advertising.


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

jamesB said:


> That's really odd, I was under the impression that being a moderator sort of meant you had a responsibility to keep an eye out and try to keep things on track etc.
> Not just accept the title and then disappear when the going gets rough.
> But then again, I tend to be old fashioned when it comes to rules and laws and the likes.


Hmm.. Obviously you were mistaken. Funny how for some people real life responsibilities might trump rules and laws of a forum on the Internet.

I know that one of the mods you mentioned just became a dad.. So maybe he should shirk that responsibility with his wife and new baby because according to you there's a law that he mustn't do anything but sit on the Internet.


----------



## wslctrc (Nov 13, 2007)

Wow, leave for a bit to run my own forum, come back and the place has gone to the dogs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Garry said:


> I know that one of the mods you mentioned just became a dad.. So maybe he should shirk that responsibility with his wife and new baby because according to you there's a law that he mustn't do anything but sit on the Internet.


Since you are in Calgary, I assume that new dad is Chealion, is that right? If so, please give Michael my congrats!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Everyone should just take a deep breather. If you delete your posts then I or someone else on here who joined and has used the site to get helpful tips for our Mac questions will no longer be able to.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> Everyone should just take a deep breather. If you delete your posts then I or someone else on here who joined and has used the site to get helpful tips for our Mac questions will no longer be able to.


Good point. One does not gain much by cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Bit of a catch 22.

Ignoring the ads, the overall layout is superb. That has not changed.

What has changed is despite the conditions laid out by management, our posts are no longer our own. Mo has made it very clear, in a rather obtuse manner, that this change is here to stay.

This *was* one of the best on-line communities I have had the pleasure of visiting or being a part of. *Having said that: I believe it is time to unionize and go on strike. I would suggest a week, starting this Saturday;* *No posts, no visits.* 
*EDIT: In light of the owners removing the offending links I am withdrawing this suggestion. Thanks*

As I have said earlier, ehMac offers zero in the way of owner provided content. The forum is entirely what we as members bring to the table. So what have we got to lose by taking a week off in order to point that out to the owners? I think the community can/should be saved and hope enough of you value it enough to make this small effort.

If we send a clear message in the form of a one week strike and the owners still insist on altering our posts, then each of us will have to decide whether we still want to be active members. If we decide to leave the community we will also have to decide if we will withdraw some or all of our contributions. I have already decided that my photos will be removed, should it come to that. 

Given what I have seen so far, perhaps the best we can hope for is that one or two of our web gurus will find the time to set up a viable alternative. Were that to happen I am reasonably certain ehMac would quickly fade into oblivion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think it matters to the company if people post new content. They're counting on chance visitors to blindly click the links and hyperlinks inserted into existing old posts. There are already 1,237,996 posts here to be mined for chance ad clicks. Not posting for a week would delay it from rising to 1,238,500 for seven days. I doubt they would even notice.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't think it matters to the company if people post new content. They're counting on chance visitors to blindly click the links and hyperlinks inserted into existing old posts. There are already 1,237,996 posts here to be mined for chance ad clicks. Not posting for a week would delay it from rising to 1,238,500 for seven days. I doubt they would even notice.


Yes, agreed.

ehMac gets high Google ranks. People search, find an ancient thread (Bingo, pageview!) and perhaps clickthrough. Profit.

Even if individual members deleted posts, there will still be thousands of posts to mine. 

The choices are stay or go/move somewhere else.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> The choices are stay or go/move somewhere else.


This is it in a nutshell. 

I can settle for warning people not to click on my post links. It's a weird but acceptable standoff.

I'm also not interested in joining an alternative utopia to EhMac. I'm already allergic to listening to people describing how great the new moderating policy will be at the forum that's a gleam in someone's eye.

I've seen the MacMagic ghost town. Why build another?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sad but true. So how about them Ottawa Senators!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I've made a wishy-washy offer to moderate said newtopia, should it come to fruition. (Wishy-washy in that I need to think about what time I have.)

I have a few ideas for how that would work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I've made a wishy-washy offer to moderate said newtopia, should it come to fruition. (Wishy-washy in that I need to think about what time I have.)
> 
> I have a few ideas for how that would work.


Enjoy your new moderating powers! 

(Thank goodness they won't apply to me.)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Enjoy your new moderating powers!
> 
> (Thank goodness they won't apply to me.)


Well that will cut down on at least 90% of the complaining right there....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Well that will cut down on at least 90% of the complaining right there....


There's nothing like making people stew in the juices of their own hypocrisy to encourage them to push the "mod" button!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Interesting. Last night the links were active. A few moments ago they were not.

Obviously they can be turned on and off at will. I am not going to celebrate just yet, but as I keep repeating the owners bring nothing to the table to attract people to this site. As another thread has pointed out new members are not joining as older members leave. It is very much in managements best interests to keep those members they have.

Yes over 90% of the people viewing may not be logged in members, but most of them are I suspect regular viewers and even members who are not currently logged in. If the site does not remain vibrant and up to date, these viewer numbers will also continue to diminish. A mere six months and much of the Mac related advice becomes entirely outdated.


----------



## VSAdmin (Nov 5, 2012)

Hey all,

eMacMan, it was mistakenly turned on to users, as only guests should have seen those viglinks.

I have read the posts here and it's clear that wasn't enough. The community is displeased because of the wording regarding the viglink usage and their content.

I have understood the issue at hand. I've made them turn off viglink permanently from this site (and it no longer shows to guests or users).

Sorry for any issues this has caused with the community. The ad-linking software has been turned off for good.

Mo


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

eMacMan said:


> Interesting. Last night the links were active. A few moments ago they were not.
> 
> Obviously they can be turned on and off at will. I am not going to celebrate just yet, but as I keep repeating the owners bring nothing to the table to attract people to this site. As another thread has pointed out new members are not joining as older members leave. It is very much in managements best interests to keep those members they have.
> 
> Yes over 90% of the people viewing may not be logged in members, but most of them are I suspect regular viewers and even members who are not currently logged in. If the site does not remain vibrant and up to date, these viewer numbers will also continue to diminish. A mere six months and much of the Mac related advice becomes entirely outdated.


Sadly, as pointed out earlier in this thread it really doesn't matter if new members join or current members leave, there are over 1 million posts that have lots and lots of data to mine.

Lastly the previous info about deleted accounts is correct, when I asked for my old account to be deleted (along with all the posts attached to it), the account was deleted but the 7 thousand plus posts remained.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I've made a wishy-washy offer to moderate said newtopia, should it come to fruition. (Wishy-washy in that I need to think about what time I have.)
> 
> I have a few ideas for how that would work.


As I've done before (and only do so again, in case some didn't see my original offer...) we'd be more than happy to have any of you join Techsurvivors. We don't allow political discussions (or religious ones) simply because they tend to turn into flame-fests, but we have a wonderful group of very friendly, knowledgable Mac users. We're entirely volunteer-run and supported, and we've been around for almost 13 years now. There are about 6 or 7 ehMac members who are also TS members. We're not as big or active as ehMac (though for the first few years of ehMac, we were actually bigger and more active, oddly enough - for a while there, I didn't think THIS place was going to ever take off!) but with an influx of new members interested in participating, things could definitely take off. And don't worry - we won't be selling!  The only thing we're hoping to do in the next few months is update our board software!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mo said:


> I have understood the issue at hand. I've made them turn off viglink permanently from this site (and it no longer shows to guests or users).
> 
> Sorry for any issues this has caused with the community. *The ad-linking software has been turned off for good.*
> 
> Mo


That's an unexpected surprise--thank you!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Shocking but welcome news. Thanks Mo!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> eMacMan, it was mistakenly turned on to users, as only guests should have seen those viglinks.
> 
> ...


Hey, thanks Mo!


----------



## VSAdmin (Nov 5, 2012)

No worries! I am glad that I could help turn it off completely

Mo


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Mo said:


> Hey all,
> 
> eMacMan, it was mistakenly turned on to users, as only guests should have seen those viglinks.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much! I have altered my signature accordingly. I have also added an edit saying the strike idea is no longer needed.

Perhaps I found this a bit more out of line than some members. Something I have learned with age is; that when something is not right, it won't get changed unless the community speaks out. 

Will be nice to put this one behind us.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Tested for myself, and changed my signature to remove the warning.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I too have removed the warning.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

:clap::clap::clap:

:love2::love2::love2:


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Thanks Mo. The very few (and now irrelevant) posts which I had edited are now edited to remove any negative comments regarding ad links.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Thank you, Mo. Nice to know that we were finally listened to. 

Now...can you do something about the layout of the ads for non-members/those without adblock turned on? They're really a mess and don't help "sell" the site to prospective new members, IMHO. No harm in asking...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

thanks Mo!


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

SINC said:


> Since you are in Calgary, I assume that new dad is Chealion, is that right? If so, please give Michael my congrats!


I am and it is. I will when I see him. It's rare right now because he's busy with the family.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Well that will cut down on at least 90% of the complaining right there....


It's somewhat satisfying to witness the terror at the 'thought', even though it isn't the case. 

Imagine threatening not to come and badger people away?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Ah, that's better. I was afraid you would all go away and leave me alone in this big scary world


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

Thanks Mo!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> It's somewhat satisfying to witness the terror at the 'thought', even though it isn't the case.
> 
> Imagine threatening not to come and badger people away?


Did someone say badger???????? Call out the hounds to chase it away. XX)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> It's somewhat satisfying to witness the terror at the 'thought', even though it isn't the case.
> 
> Imagine threatening not to come and badger people away?


Political threads would be a lot less fun if we were all sitting around violently agreeing with one another.

If you're going to have politics, you'll have badgers.


----------



## VSAdmin (Nov 5, 2012)

Paddy said:


> Thank you, Mo. Nice to know that we were finally listened to.
> 
> Now...can you do something about the layout of the ads for non-members/those without adblock turned on? They're really a mess and don't help "sell" the site to prospective new members, IMHO. No harm in asking...



No worries at all!

I will look into those ads and try it out myself. Usually guests on almost all sites see ads. If I think they are too intrusive I will see what I can do about getting it reduced.

Mo


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Well that will cut down on at least 90% of the complaining right there....


I guess this latest news will cut down on 90% of the giddy plans for new forums.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Political threads would be a lot less fun if we were all sitting around violently agreeing with one another.
> 
> If you're going to have politics, you'll have badgers.


on both sides. I guess that's what makes it a good sport.

Good fun. That is true though, the disagreements makes for more posts.


----------



## racewalker (Sep 20, 2010)

Thanks Mo I will start posting again. I was on my way out!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> *Political threads would be a lot less fun if we were all sitting around violently agreeing with one another.
> *
> If you're going to have politics, you'll have badgers.


:lmao: That certainly has been demonstrated lately with all the mutual back slapping that has been going on.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well let's face it, we on the er, 'left' weathered quite a while of mutual backslapping while it was the conservatives time to pontificate about being better etc etc, now that we're seeing scandal upon scandal, federally and here in Toronto we're having quite a cackle about our conservative mayor apparently, smoking crack (!).

Sure, we're having a bit of a real guffaw about it. 

But as we all know, there'll be plenty of opportunity when the liberals get in to allow others to have their fun too.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanks, Mo. Much better now.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Wow, I've been following this thread (quietly) and I must say, I'm quite relieved by how things have turned around for the better. It was like watching a network sitcom that was about to be cancelled, when all of a sudden, Bill Murray guest stars and the ratings sky rocket and save the season. (or something like that) 

Three cheers for ehMac! For many of us, it's been a part of our lives for a long, long, time. I'd hate to see it go.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> I too have removed the warning.


Weird, yesterday I removed the warning from my signature and now it is back. Will try again.

Just to be sure you can see what I mean, I took a screen shot, then edited this post.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Odd, but when I went to my sig, the "NOTICE" was not there, so I clicked on save anyway. We will see what happens when I post this.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And now the sig line is gone again. Why does it keep reappearing?


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

took it out of my sig as well

sinc, are your putting the ehmac link back on my birdie.ca?

amazing golf shot hitting the clay pigeon!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Weird, yesterday I removed the warning from my signature and now it is back. Will try again.
> 
> Just to be sure you can see what I mean, I took a screen shot, then edited this post.


I changed my signatureto an updated version of my equipment holdings, but it reverted back to the signature I had two signatures ago.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

My new signature was replaced with the warning one as well.

This one is the third iteration.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I think it's a weird signature bug.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Mo said:


> No worries! I am glad that I could help turn it off completely
> 
> Mo


Thanks for the pleasant surprise Mo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kelman said:


> took it out of my sig as well
> 
> sinc, are your putting the ehmac link back on my birdie.ca?
> 
> amazing golf shot hitting the clay pigeon!


I can if you like, just say the word. I trimmed a bunch of the links to make room for more local ones. I never thought anyone would be using it here. And thanks for reading SAP, it just keeps growing and that makes the time I spend on it worthwhile.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Sinc, I read SAP every morning and with your health problems lately, I get concerned when it's late. Thanks for the entertainment.
Aurora.


----------



## johnp (Aug 7, 2011)

Aurora said:


> Sinc, I read SAP every morning and with your health problems lately, I get concerned when it's late. Thanks for the entertainment.
> Aurora.


... a big second on that from me. And good to read your words lately Don ... you 'sound' to be doing so much better. 
Just looking forward to the day when that map properly detects where I actually live, and not the other cities nearby!!!


----------



## kelman (Sep 25, 2010)

SINC said:


> I can if you like, just say the word. I trimmed a bunch of the links to make room for more local ones. I never thought anyone would be using it here. And thanks for reading SAP, it just keeps growing and that makes the time I spend on it worthwhile.


I wasn't sure if you took it out because of the recent turmoil, I don't use it myself, just curious. Echoing the words above, hoping you are doing better, I also read SAP daily around 7:30 before my day unless you are late on the update.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Hmmm... My signature was showing an older version as well. When I checked it the correct version was showing so I saved and I am back to my latest sig.

Not sure where the site is currently pulling its signatures from.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well that's just weird.

I got rid of my warning, and now, it's back!

I'll just leave it for now until this bug gets sorted I can't be bothered to keep changing it.

I'm not aware of anything in VB that would do that...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I guess that's why I'm just leaving mine alone for now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

aaaand it's now changed. Again.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with someone farting around with my personal profile stuff. That's a bit disturbing.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Mine is back to how glorious I am, and I'm OK with that. :lmao:

Well, it was until I went into Preview mode for this post???

Gonna light the fuse now, and see what happens. 
.
.
.
*EDIT*: Preview showed the 3 signature. Odd what?

I think Mo is playing a Demi game of one. beejacon


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

groovetube said:


> aaaand it's now changed. Again.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with someone farting around with my personal profile stuff. That's a bit disturbing.


Indeed, there's something funky going on. There's no need to be messing with that kind of stuff. It's like they are trying something, then rolling it back but are only protecting that the posts table is protected, so other things like the signatures (and presumably other person profile stuff) is bouncing around like a yo-yo.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

I guess we try asking 'Mo' what's going on, just don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

What seems to have happened is that for some reason sigs were/are being pulled from an outdated cache file. When you went into your sig details it showed whatever you had last saved. Saving it again, updates the corrupt cache as well.

Hopefully this glitch has now worked its way through the system.


----------



## VSAdmin (Nov 5, 2012)

eMacMan said:


> What seems to have happened is that for some reason sigs were/are being pulled from an outdated cache file. When you went into your sig details it showed whatever you had last saved. Saving it again, updates the corrupt cache as well.
> 
> Hopefully this glitch has now worked its way through the system.


Thanks for explaining! I was just a little busy with family over the weekend, but your explanation is correct!

I will double check on the issue tomorrow, but I do believe the issue is fixed.

Thanks all!

Mo


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanks again, Mo. I will change my signature back as soon as I remember how.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

curious, is there a cache plugin or something? I've never had this problem on VB forum I've run for years and people change their sigs all the time. I think we're running the same version VB.


----------

