patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,190 comments by 14,059 users - Ceffer, Patrick, richwicks online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 33 - 72 of 95 Next » Last » Search these comments
Well, I do separate them like this:
http://patrick.net/real-estate/
http://patrick.net/investing/Is there a better way to do the separation?
Making it like it was before -- more obvious and prominent. And getting rid of the hobo stew of unrelated threads on the left.
You are right that it is still separated out, but I either have to squint to find the link at the top of the page (where I don't tend to be looking), or I have to remember the separate links (and be willing to type them in)....I'm less likely to do either of those than click on prominent link as it was before.
The interesting thing about all of this is that I figured it was obvious, and that if you were paying attention you would eventually change it back. Evidently the new format is actually generating more interest / activity (I believe you said this in a prior comment). If this is the case, then I don't blame you for wanting to keep it the same -- follow the numbers! But, be aware that it's not universal. I don't have an easy way to measure this (maybe you do, Patrick?) but I would bet that I am a less active on the forums after the change as compared to before the change. Of course, I'm just one person.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 3:53am
free for all for all kinds of kooks, nuts , shills and all kinds of silly and irrelevant stuff.
You have the power to help! Please vote newslinks up or down. And submit good links (just paste the link into any comment or new discussion and they will get picked up).
This is where you would get serious discussion by serious and thoughtful and well-informed people, about serious matters. And sometimes there would be a bit of comic relief, but again from the same thoughtful people.
As a Premium member, you now have the ability to moderate all of your own discussions. Please start a new discussion and delete the troll comments, keeping the polite comments.
Are you really getting much monetary value out of all the changes over the last 2-3 years? How about a plot of of unique users/day as a function of time?
Not monetary, but clearly the forum has been catching on. Here's a graph of comments per day (and remember there about 20x as many views as comments):
So the future seems to be in the forum, though I think the newslinks could be very high quality if more than 0.06% of users would vote on them. Voting is easy, just click the up or down arrows next to links on the home page.
I'm trying to give users the power to make the site what they want. I'm a user too and vote and moderate comments, but the site is too big for one unpaid person.
Is there a better way to do the separation?
I think your responses suggest you really like what you've set up despite several people telling you it doesn't work. Understand. Just note that your responses consistently include phrases like "All you have to do...." Asking customers to do something different when they've loved your product is very, very difficult no matter how smart your new design.
Make the links on the front page only the real estate links, like it was before. Try using the voted real estate links, but limit them to real estate. I know that probably conflicts with your computer science, since there will be an illogical structure to the site, but I think that's the request being made by several here.
Why do some links show up as "patrick.net?" I'm confused by that and generally don't click on them.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 4:26am
Make the links on the front page only the real estate links, like it was before.
That's just one click away: http://patrick.net/real-estate/
I think "All you have to do" is the right phrase. All you have to do is click that, or bookmark it. Remember that other users requested each one of those other pages: Politics, Religion, etc. I can't please everyone, but I can shoot for some middle ground.
I know changes suck and drive people away because it's uncomfortable to understand a new scheme. At first I hated Facebook's new timeline or whatever they call it, but now I'm familiar with it and don't even notice. I will try to minimize changes though.
Why do some links show up as "patrick.net?" I'm confused by that and generally don't click on them.
That's a bug. When a user includes a link to an image, I don't have a title for the image unless that user chooses to add that. Say, that gives me an idea. I'll change "Patrick.net" to "Title this Image" and let the first interested person title it.
The usefulness of the website has gone down significantly for me. I normally read wsj, nyt, Bloomberg and Reuters news in the morning - mostly business and economic news.
For years I have come to patrick and read housing news of the days. Now the article quality isn't making it for me.
Hope P that you find a formula that works for you.
-m
CL
2012 Jul 17, 4:54am
Making it like it was before -- more obvious and prominent. And getting rid of the hobo stew of unrelated threads on the left.
And if RE isn't generating the hits it once was, broaden it to emphasize the economics. Seems like a lot of your contributors understand economics well, including renting, buying and macro.
Just a thunk.
That's just one click away: http://patrick.net/real-estate/
I get it. I'm just pointing out that many of the comments suggest that "one click" is driving them from the site. I'm basically ignoring the front page now and just going to the real estate link with the one click.
I love the option to get rid of pictures. Thanks!
Here's one example of a problem with this new forum format. The following makes no sense to me:
Needs title (wikipedia.org)
Submitted by HRHMedia 22 hours ago 300 comments Share 16
Click on "Needs title" and you're sent to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy?source=Patrick.net
Click on "comments" and the first and highlighted comment is about global warming.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 6:13am
I love the option to get rid of pictures. Thanks!
That was by popular demand. Glad I could do it.
Needs title (wikipedia.org)
Yes, that's that same bug where I couldn't find a title. I will fix it to allow any user to add a title to a link that doesn't have one.
Click on "comments" and the first and highlighted comment is about global warming.
Another bug I will fix. The problem there is that the "comments" link goes back to the top of the thread, not to the specific comment where the link was posted.
How do you get rid of pictures? The pictures drive me nuts.
I like coming to Patrick.net for the curated links to news and other "interestingness." If I remember correctly it used to be forums on the left, links on the right. I would like to see a separate section for external links.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 7:58am
How do you get rid of pictures? The pictures drive me nuts.
Just edit your profile:
http://patrick.net/includes/profile.php
It's the last checkbox.
Why is it when you click on comments for a thread, it dumps you towards the most recent posts by default? But not necessarily the most recent post. ie. if there is 100 comments, the first one I read under the OP is #68 and then the next 31comments
For awhile I would be so confused as to how the first person posting under the OP was quoting someone, when it seemed they were the first person to respond.
Imo it should be chronological one way or the other. Either the first response under the OP, or the most recent one,,,,,don't mean to sound whiny, just my .02
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 8:09am
The discussions show the 40 most recent comments by default. I agonized about that, but it just made sense to have the most recent comment directly above the comment submission box. So everything reads top-down, starting with the Original Post, in chronological order.
You can go back in chunks of 40 comments with the "Previous comments" link.
Comments are all numbered and timestamped to give you a little more orientation.
It's just like Facebook really. You have the original post, then some skipped comments, then the most recent comments, then the comment submission box.
I just don't see the utility in having the middle of the thread being the first post you read after the OP. I don't use facebook, so I dunno
On that chart you posted of your comments traffic, it seems odd that your biggest trough was when TSHTF, is that just from the wordpress blog? Was it less because we had that other forum at the time?
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 8:50am
True, it is slightly disorienting at first to see the first comment after the original post refer to some earlier comment which is not visible. I don't see a better solution though, since the most recent comments are the ones most people want to see.
On that chart you posted of your comments traffic, it seems odd that your biggest trough was when TSHTF, is that just from the wordpress blog? Was it less because we had that other forum at the time?
Yes, could be because we had that other forum taking traffic away from this one. I'm glad there's just one forum on Patrick.net now. Much cleaner and easier to explain.
justme
2012 Jul 17, 10:43am
And if RE isn't generating the hits it once was, broaden it to emphasize the economics.
That is a good point. But keep it as part of the Real Estate forum, the last thing we need is another fragmented forum.
justme
2012 Jul 17, 10:46am
Here's a graph of comments per day (and remember there about 20x as many views as comments):
Impressive increase in comments, but I just don't have the time nor desire to read them all. I think comment quality is much more important than comment quantity, and I think the quality is on a decline and has been for a while.
What about the number of unique users per day? I think that is more important than both the number of page views and the number of comments.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 10:47am
What about the number of unique users per day? I think that is more important than both the number of page views and the number of comments.
You can see that number in the top of every page. 19,015 unique users yesterday. I don't have a graph, but it doesn't change much, except that it's lower on the weekends. Must mean people read Patrick.net at work.
I agree w/ many comments that the quality of the links (the main reason for me to visit P.net, the forums are secondary) is not working for me either. I used to come every day for those curated links, and now it is more work to go through what's there than it is worth for the most part. I also understand the lots of work and not much reward part, as I have a similar situation. However, if enough visitors are like me, then that is bad news for this site's traffic. Also, something that is key for me as far as your site, is the trust that you have built over the years. The trust, comes for me, from the type of links you provide, and not so much the comments you post on the forums (which are also good in that regard). But since you are not providing the links any more, trust may be slowly eroding. Could you not possibly 'sell' your links to a news outlet of some sort? I mean you have the traffic, if you sold your links, the people that come here of that could get them from a source that can monetize them (e.g. via existing advertising)...and if they stuff whatever adverts on their pages (e.g. Realtor ads), that's their call, and does not compromise your trust. Dunno, it is a tough pickle, but for me the links were 'it', and 'it' is no longer here...
I get that Patrick is trying to offload some of the work onto us, so I've been voting for links and stories from sources I want to read. It seems to have been slightly improving over the last week as more vote. It does take me a bit more time, but I figure that's the time I'm saving Patrick.
Patrick, please return to the old site format. I echo the cries of distress from the OP. This site looks and feels like a toilet right now. There's a reason no one uses Digg anymore. QUALITY over quantity, please. And user-voting does not ensure quality.
How about a link on the bottom of the page, to return to the home screen?
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 1:45pm
QUALITY over quantity, please. And user-voting does not ensure quality.
If I could make a living at it, I'd do it. But I tried for years, and I can't.
Your votes would help ensure quality!
How about a link on the bottom of the page, to return to the home screen?
Sure, no problem. Done.
QUALITY over quantity, please. And user-voting does not ensure quality.
If I could make a living at it, I'd do it. But I tried for years, and I can't.
Your votes would help ensure quality!
How about a link on the bottom of the page, to return to the home screen?
Sure, no problem. Done.
But are you making (or expect to be able to make) a living on the forum??
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 2:30pm
No, but the forum is growing in usage while the news links were stagnating. If the forum keeps growing, advertising or some kind of premium subscription thing seems bound to work.
Even more important, the forum is much less work for me, just some system admin and spam deletion.
So is the forum something you love to do? (i.e. Steve Jobs passion level)
What would be your long term vision for it? Currently it seems a bit of a mess (constructive feedback here).
And also, if it frees up time, is this extra time you want to dedicate to another project, or family? If you expect it to be your main source of income, it would be hard to imagine that monetizing it to that level would be easy.
tts
2012 Jul 17, 3:10pm
Patrick
Any particular reason you took away the ability to see the threads you've commented in by clicking on your handle?
That was a very handy way to follow threads...
The discussions are thriving though! There are more daily comments on the discussions than ever before.
Man, the only thing I've noticed thriving is my ignore list. It seems like everyt discussion devolves into a back and forth of personal attacks like "you're a selfish uneducated jew-hating bigot!" and "you're a lazy socialist Obama dick-sucker!" Some kind of moderation is needed because when given free reign, civility goes right out the window and the end result is a Youtube comment section.
I agree the links are pretty bad now, but they are getting marginally better as more people vote.
Honestly Patrick? How long can it really take to throw up links? You must have your go-to economy and real estate feeds/sites. You can scan the headlines, read the first or second paragraph of interesting ones, and discard the others. Plus, you could accept headline suggestions from readers (by email). I'm pretty sure I could throw up some plain HTML links in about 15 min. each morning. I'm not bragging - I certainly don't have your eye for quality - I'm just trying to give a realistic assessment of how much time I think it should take. But maybe I'm wrong.
Perhaps if you just focused on 5 selected headlines per day (instead of the old 10-15?). That really couldn't take that much time. And it would keep all of us old-time readers happy while you continued to grow your forum business.
And just as a further bit of anecdotal evidence - I used to readily send people to this site if they were new to the whole housing bubble idea and needed some good info. I do not feel comfortable recommending this site anymore. What would someone find here? They would not know what they were looking at, and they would almost certainly leave before they learned anything useful.
I know this is probably just too simple to work....but....why not charge $10 per year per user for the links?
If you have about 20K unique users as per your counter, if 1/2 pay the fee, you are making $100K gross...getting about 2x median Bay area salary for doing something you truly enjoy...(if 1/4 pay, you are at median salary)...if you provided the avg. 10 quality links you used to (5 days a week) which I used to look forward to daily, I would certainly pay that amount for it...the rest of the people can keep the free forum (w/ premium features also available to subscribers)...just put the mess of the homepage out of its misery...please...also maybe you could do a NYTimes type of deal where new/anonymous users get to click 10 links per month (not sure how to keep track of this even when clearing cookies...ip address?), and after that the links do not work (they can see the heading but can not click it)...if the links are good, 'the path of least resistance' will be the $10 per year (as long as you make it dead simple to pay), vs. people googling each link that seems interesting to them...
Another point - if you say that the links 'are not the future' for you, then what is the harm in implementing the pay scheme for them? Other than your time, give that a shot for 6 months, and if people don't pay go back to the wild west of ratings...
As a completely unrelated note, I would like to report that the spelling dictionary for Google Chrome (my browser) does not recognize 'googling' as a proper word...how about that.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 4:23pm
Patrick
Any particular reason you took away the ability to see the threads you've commented in by clicking on your handle?
That was a very handy way to follow threads...
Uh oh. That's a bug. Will fix.
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 4:42pm
OK, fixed. If you mean the bug whereby clicking "Comments: " would show you a list of all the comments you made.
As a web publisher of sorts, maybe this lecture inspires you for some ideas...
Patrick
2012 Jul 17, 4:57pm
So is the forum something you love to do? (i.e. Steve Jobs passion level)
What would be your long term vision for it? Currently it seems a bit of a mess (constructive feedback here).
And also, if it frees up time, is this extra time you want to dedicate to another project, or family? If you expect it to be your main source of income, it would be hard to imagine that monetizing it to that level would be easy.
Yes, I find it very addictive and would like it to be a channel to circumvent the MLS. Long term, I'd like to replace the MLS, crazy as that sounds. The time I'm freeing up is so that I can get a real job.
if 1/2 pay the fee
That's a nice thought, but from my previous attempt I know the reality is more like 0.5% (half a percent, not 50 percent). So about 1 hundreth of what you suggested.
Seriously, no one pays for anything. By far my biggest source of income has been donations.
Dsdf4 says
then what is the harm in implementing the pay scheme
Because then I have to put in the time no matter how few users I get.
Yes, I find it very addictive and would like it to be a channel to circumvent the MLS. Long term, I'd like to replace the MLS, crazy as that sounds.
It doesn't necessarily sound crazy, but I am not sure what added value the forum (even if you had the for sale/for rent/wanted sections) would add over existing sites such as craigslist, redfin, padmapper (rentals) & such...and you still would need to monetize it somehow (ads/subscription/post fees...and you seem to think nobody pays for anything anyways)
from my previous attempt
What did you do? I have been reading for years and do not ever recall a payment attempt...also how did you implement it? Devil is in the details...
I find it very addictive
Sounds like a hobby gone wrong....
Seriously, no one pays for anything. By far my biggest source of income has been donations.
Isn't that people paying for something, after all? I would say that no one pays for anything they can not pay for/afford (except for housing, of course), or for anything not worth paying for (whatever the asking price is).
tts
2012 Jul 17, 9:49pm
Patrick
Any particular reason you took away the ability to see the threads you've commented in by clicking on your handle?
That was a very handy way to follow threads...
Uh oh. That's a bug. Will fix.
OK its working now.
Can you put back the "trollishness" stat page too?
Patrick
2012 Jul 18, 2:50am
Can you put back the "trollishness" stat page too?
Trollishness is still where it ever was, on this page: /users.php
« First « Previous Comments 33 - 72 of 95 Next » Last » Search these comments
Are you trying to drive people AWAY from your site? The new layout/format sucks. Big time. A "forum" should feel like a forum, right now, your site feels like a cesspool of links.
Any chance you can revert back/fix it? Personally, I used to visit your site atleast a few times a day. Since this new layout, it's become a few times a week or less.