Another open letter to 2+2

[ThaSaltCracka]

wacki, good idea in principle, but it is one which would be a horrible business move. If they charged people to use this site, traffic would go way down, advertising fees would go way down, visibility goes way down. 2p2 should get this, but charging people, come on man.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
wacki, good idea in principle, but it is one which would be a horrible business move. If they charged people to use this site, traffic would go way down, advertising fees would go way down, visibility goes way down. 2p2 should get this, but charging people, come on man.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about just charging for use of the improved search?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wacki, good idea in principle, but it is one which would be a horrible business move. If they charged people to use this site, traffic would go way down, advertising fees would go way down, visibility goes way down. 2p2 should get this, but charging people, come on man.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about just charging for use of the improved search?

[/ QUOTE ]um.....ok..... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wacki, good idea in principle, but it is one which would be a horrible business move. If they charged people to use this site, traffic would go way down, advertising fees would go way down, visibility goes way down. 2p2 should get this, but charging people, come on man.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about just charging for use of the improved search?

[/ QUOTE ]um.....ok..... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What's so confusing? They could set up a more powerful search tool, and allow those of us to subscribe to it to do so. they could cover the cost of the software, and access to the site would not be restricted.

[ThaSaltCracka]

so you are saying there should be two search engines? No offense bro, but that is just retarded.

I think you would see people who don't pay getting the people that do to search for them. I don't like this idea. I support a fee for being able to post at all.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Wacki - your link doesn't work. What were you searching for?

[/ QUOTE ]

"and then had her lick it clean." site:archiveserver.twoplustwo.com

This doesn't work. Quote is EXACT because I found the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh...you were searching the archive server. The problem is that it's dynamically generated content, so the google mini or google site wouldn't be able to find what you're looking for anyway. You're kind of hosed on that front.

-- Edit: I spoke too soon. The app does support dynamic content, but I'm more curious as to why google didn't index the page you're looking for. It should have. --

Assuming the content is stored in some database, then the 2+2 mods would have to buy the larger Google Search Appliance rather than the mini, which appears to start at $30k.

"The Google Search Appliance is designed for larger businesses and can support up to 15 million documents. The Search Appliance also includes a variety of features such as direct database indexing, continuous crawling, unlimited search collections, RAID (to provide continued service in the event of hard disk failure) and support for user-level document security."

But hey - it comes with RAID.

[raisins]

I don't understand why anyone would vote against. This is the biggest improvement 2+2 could make.

If there is a problem money wise, what about making the arcives, or archive search, available for a fee?

raisins

[Hiding]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a problem money wise, what about making the arcives, or archive search, available for a fee?


[/ QUOTE ]

I voted yay, but what makes anyone think that 300 or 3000 people will pay to search archives?

I am very curious how many people use the search and how often? Just to browse past the first ten pages or to find relavant info?

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
Charge the users a fee to give them access to it if you have to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hell no. I love 2+2, but I have plenty of people I can talk hands with if they start charging $.