soundNERD,
If you could please read my post again. The info I asked for was not supplied on their website which is why I asked if you could get in contact with them and find out for me.
fdegrove,
I wont say that we have a use for your machine at present but I'll certainly keep it in mind, if we eventually get paid hosting, we will need rack servers etc so I'm hoping that that is what we can aquire now.
All,
At present, I'm considering the option of getting a donated database server and then finding someone willing to network it to a shared server (ie. colocate the database server in the same server farm as a shared or virtual private webserver) that will then just have to do the php / apache stuff generally requiring much lower specs on the webserver. It's quite easy to get affordable paid hosting with high bandwidth if you dont need huge RAM and HDD resources. All offers, ideas and suggestions welcome.
If you could please read my post again. The info I asked for was not supplied on their website which is why I asked if you could get in contact with them and find out for me.
fdegrove,
I wont say that we have a use for your machine at present but I'll certainly keep it in mind, if we eventually get paid hosting, we will need rack servers etc so I'm hoping that that is what we can aquire now.
All,
At present, I'm considering the option of getting a donated database server and then finding someone willing to network it to a shared server (ie. colocate the database server in the same server farm as a shared or virtual private webserver) that will then just have to do the php / apache stuff generally requiring much lower specs on the webserver. It's quite easy to get affordable paid hosting with high bandwidth if you dont need huge RAM and HDD resources. All offers, ideas and suggestions welcome.
Hi,
Afraid I'm all too well aware of the situation but what's Sitepoint position on this?
I can only offer what I have at an at cost basis but I have a nagging feeling that's not going to suffice in the long run.
We'll have to sort this prob once and for all, paying members or not won't you say?
Wish I could be of greater help.
Keep us informed.
Sincerely,
Afraid I'm all too well aware of the situation but what's Sitepoint position on this?
I can only offer what I have at an at cost basis but I have a nagging feeling that's not going to suffice in the long run.
We'll have to sort this prob once and for all, paying members or not won't you say?
Wish I could be of greater help.
Keep us informed.
Sincerely,
Sitepoint's position is basically that they dont have a spot on their new server for us. So that's that. I appreciate the nature of the facts and certainly appreciate the offer you have made. I'm more just stating the obvious for others that are lurking that might be able to help. As I said before, we might find a use for that box, maybe not, hard to say really. In the mean time, offers are still most welcome. I can't rest on this until I know we have a new home to go to. I smell a beg-a-thon drawing ever nearer.
ps. I dont believe that this site will become a paid members only place ever (well I hope it doesn't) so we are considering all the options available to us without limitting access to those that are financial contributors.
ps. I dont believe that this site will become a paid members only place ever (well I hope it doesn't) so we are considering all the options available to us without limitting access to those that are financial contributors.
Hi,
O.K. but this can be solved, we have enough members to save the forum.
I've no idea about how urgent this is but if you want to discuss it privately, be my guest.
I suppose you guys did ask Sitepoint about the cost of running the service on a pro annum basis already so you'd have some idea of what to look for already?
How about some sponsoring from the bigger audio players, etc?
Would members really object to paying a membership fee?
Do what you must do, Dan, you've got all our support, surely
Cheers,
O.K. but this can be solved, we have enough members to save the forum.
I've no idea about how urgent this is but if you want to discuss it privately, be my guest.
I suppose you guys did ask Sitepoint about the cost of running the service on a pro annum basis already so you'd have some idea of what to look for already?
How about some sponsoring from the bigger audio players, etc?
Would members really object to paying a membership fee?
Do what you must do, Dan, you've got all our support, surely
Cheers,
Yes I believe you are right there. We just need to find the right members that can provide what we need.fdegrove said:
Really need to sort a new server out in the next 4 weeks.fdegrove said:
Costs will be totally dependant on what we end up settling for and can vary by an order of magnitude or more. I also know that we will not be hosted on Sitepoint's server.fdegrove said:
Certainly something we are already looking into.fdegrove said:
From a quick bit of research I did, I would say that there are quite a few that would and or simply dont have the economic means to do so.fdegrove said:
I sure hope so.fdegrove said:Do what you must do, Dan, you've got all our support, surely
well, whatever happens happens, but if the basket is passed around sometime next year (hopefully no earlier than february, broke tillt then), i'd surely pitch in
this site's been VERY useful for me, and its got super friendly people
But, I don't think that it becoming a pay-site would work. Most people would just leave/etc.
I think there are enough people on here that would donate to keep it running for a while though. I know there's many a generous person on here (personal experience w/ peter mainly!) to keep this place going.
this site's been VERY useful for me, and its got super friendly people
But, I don't think that it becoming a pay-site would work. Most people would just leave/etc.
I think there are enough people on here that would donate to keep it running for a while though. I know there's many a generous person on here (personal experience w/ peter mainly!) to keep this place going.
IMHO there should be no hierarchy on membership.
Not on a post basis, not on an eventual financial contribution basis.
Knowledge and a nice group of different and helpful people is the heart of DiyAudio.
I’m sure many people have parts lying around to build a server in real Diy-style.
Shipping costs of all these parts to a central point and making them work, finding out they don’t fit too good, are incompatible or whatever may occur is not an option.
A good machine doesn’t cost that much anymore these days. Relatively speaking of course.
If we would go for the beg-a-thon, I’m sure we will be able to raise enough funds within the forum. That would at least solve one major problem.
/Hugo - CC to Moamps
Not on a post basis, not on an eventual financial contribution basis.
Knowledge and a nice group of different and helpful people is the heart of DiyAudio.
I’m sure many people have parts lying around to build a server in real Diy-style.
Shipping costs of all these parts to a central point and making them work, finding out they don’t fit too good, are incompatible or whatever may occur is not an option.
A good machine doesn’t cost that much anymore these days. Relatively speaking of course.
If we would go for the beg-a-thon, I’m sure we will be able to raise enough funds within the forum. That would at least solve one major problem.
/Hugo - CC to Moamps
""IMHO there should be no hierarchy on membership.
Not on a post basis, not on an eventual financial contribution basis.
Knowledge and a nice group of different and helpful people is the heart of DiyAudio""
I fully agree, however I think it's the cost of the bandwidth thats a problem, rather than the cost of a server. If we all just chip in for a server, and the box is hosted somewhere for free then great. I thought it was the data throughput that was costing, hence my idea of the different levels...
I'd rather not pay but I come here a lot, have been given (for free!) lots of useful info off of people and don't mind investing back into that, if needs be.
Cheers
Rob
Not on a post basis, not on an eventual financial contribution basis.
Knowledge and a nice group of different and helpful people is the heart of DiyAudio""
I fully agree, however I think it's the cost of the bandwidth thats a problem, rather than the cost of a server. If we all just chip in for a server, and the box is hosted somewhere for free then great. I thought it was the data throughput that was costing, hence my idea of the different levels...
I'd rather not pay but I come here a lot, have been given (for free!) lots of useful info off of people and don't mind investing back into that, if needs be.
Cheers
Rob
Ok, my thirty-two cents.
I think the idea of members auctioning off their spare parts on eBay and donating part of the proceeds to DIYAudio is a great idea. I think an effort to mount such a project should be started immediately, and advertised on DIYAudio and anywhere else possible. Hell, as I am on break right now, I would even volunteer to supervise such a project.
I think paid membership is definately an idea worth exploring, but one that should be explored very cautiously. There is a lot of validity in the fact that some people will leave if they have to pay too much. Some are lurkers that won't be missed; however, others might just be quiet until they learn enough to have something worthwild to say.
However, I think 80% of the people who access this site daily/weekly would be more than happy to part with $5/year. I know I would, and I'm a poor college student that doesn't have much time to read even 1% of the posts. That could quickly add up to enough money to pay for hosting and a server.
A membership hierarchy is not a bad idea; however, it must be approached in such a way as to not damage the quality and content of the forums.
For example, not letting free members post attachments at all would result in a loss of content. Instead, limit the number of attachments per month to 5-10. Everything else can go by E-mail. Further limiting the size of any attachment to like 50k would cut down on bandwith. If a file larger than that needed to be uploaded, the user could secure a moderators permission before posting. I see a lot of images here that I have to maximize my browser to see, and that is just way too large for a forum attachment.
Limiting the number of posts members can post, should also be approached cautiously. I would say a limit of 5/posts a day for a free member would be sufficent. However, that limit could be raised as most of the free members would be lurkers that were not posting anyway. If we limit the number of posts though, I expect we will see a great increase in the length of posts... though I would greatly prefer that over all these 2 sentence replies that are either completely off topic or are worded in such a way they make no sense.
Along the same lines as this, I object to the comment about making the site 100% free for lurkers and really expensive for those people who post often. This is 100% counter productive to the quality and content of the forums. The people who know the most, are the ones who answer the most questions, and thereby create the quality of content that is so high on this site. If we make the site free for lurkers and then charge the people with the answers $100/month, this site will go straight down the toilet.
Along those same lines, perhaps after creating a paid membership program there could be an equivelent program to give tenative lifetime memberships to users who repected the forum rules, wrote posts that are worthwild, answered questions, and generally knew what they were talking about.
People like Planet10, Peter Daniel, Serten, and 50 other member that I am leaving out, account for a lot of the posts but they also account for a lot of the knowledge that is brought into this forum. So what if they post more, that just means they are posting more stuff that makes this place better. They should not be punished by paying more. However, there are some users out there that never jibbersih, small talk, or BSing, and I could do without having to scroll through that. There is a lot of stuff that should be put into private messages that is not, and that fills up the database.
As far as a permanet source of revenue to pay for bandwith and upgrades to a server. I find it very suprising that companies like Rockford Fosgate aren't jumping to be part of this site. I would think that a little icon, or even a banner at the bottom of the page, would be worth $50/month to them.
Hmm... perhaps the creation of a DIYAudio Store where we could sell audio componets direct from the manufactuer? That is if the manufactuers would pay minimal fees to have their items advertised here. The creation of an actual store and the proceeds paying for the site would likely consume way too much labor, overhead, and storage space to be worthwild.
If we could get some companies on-board, I think the problem would disappear in the long run. As the bigger DIYAudio becomes, the more money that will come in. Yearly subscriptions are going to put people off, unless they have the option of being a free member if they don't take advantage of the paid benifits. However, I bet if we put the begging basket out there, lots of people would chip in because I do not think anyone wants to see this site disappear.
Obviously, any of these options is going to take time to impliment. Thus, it is crucial we find somewhere to host the site in the meantime. 6-18 months should be plenty of time to find a permanent solution, and I would hope someone had a jack they could spare. Even if it comes down to AudioFreak configuring the server and shipping it to someone, and that person plugging it into a jack under their desk. ROFL (Risky though, the site might up and disappear for periods of time as the box is shipped around. Perhaps more than one person using redunant servers on opposite sides of the nation... yeah, that could get sticky!)
I work for a University in the data communications department. It might be possible for me to find a place to hide a server, and monitor its' bandwith close enough to keep it hidden. However, this would have to only be a short-term solution. We're currently running a DS3 and not hitting peak usage during any period... so I may be able to help.
One final comment. Would our current hosting company be willing to continue to host the site if we provided the server and paid them for the bandwith? I would hope as they have thus far had good dealings with AudioFreak and this site being on their server, that they would be willing to let us have some bandwith and rack space for a reduced cost.
And now I shall shut up, as I've said way more than I needed to.
-MC
I think the idea of members auctioning off their spare parts on eBay and donating part of the proceeds to DIYAudio is a great idea. I think an effort to mount such a project should be started immediately, and advertised on DIYAudio and anywhere else possible. Hell, as I am on break right now, I would even volunteer to supervise such a project.
I think paid membership is definately an idea worth exploring, but one that should be explored very cautiously. There is a lot of validity in the fact that some people will leave if they have to pay too much. Some are lurkers that won't be missed; however, others might just be quiet until they learn enough to have something worthwild to say.
However, I think 80% of the people who access this site daily/weekly would be more than happy to part with $5/year. I know I would, and I'm a poor college student that doesn't have much time to read even 1% of the posts. That could quickly add up to enough money to pay for hosting and a server.
A membership hierarchy is not a bad idea; however, it must be approached in such a way as to not damage the quality and content of the forums.
For example, not letting free members post attachments at all would result in a loss of content. Instead, limit the number of attachments per month to 5-10. Everything else can go by E-mail. Further limiting the size of any attachment to like 50k would cut down on bandwith. If a file larger than that needed to be uploaded, the user could secure a moderators permission before posting. I see a lot of images here that I have to maximize my browser to see, and that is just way too large for a forum attachment.
Limiting the number of posts members can post, should also be approached cautiously. I would say a limit of 5/posts a day for a free member would be sufficent. However, that limit could be raised as most of the free members would be lurkers that were not posting anyway. If we limit the number of posts though, I expect we will see a great increase in the length of posts... though I would greatly prefer that over all these 2 sentence replies that are either completely off topic or are worded in such a way they make no sense.
Along the same lines as this, I object to the comment about making the site 100% free for lurkers and really expensive for those people who post often. This is 100% counter productive to the quality and content of the forums. The people who know the most, are the ones who answer the most questions, and thereby create the quality of content that is so high on this site. If we make the site free for lurkers and then charge the people with the answers $100/month, this site will go straight down the toilet.
Along those same lines, perhaps after creating a paid membership program there could be an equivelent program to give tenative lifetime memberships to users who repected the forum rules, wrote posts that are worthwild, answered questions, and generally knew what they were talking about.
People like Planet10, Peter Daniel, Serten, and 50 other member that I am leaving out, account for a lot of the posts but they also account for a lot of the knowledge that is brought into this forum. So what if they post more, that just means they are posting more stuff that makes this place better. They should not be punished by paying more. However, there are some users out there that never jibbersih, small talk, or BSing, and I could do without having to scroll through that. There is a lot of stuff that should be put into private messages that is not, and that fills up the database.
As far as a permanet source of revenue to pay for bandwith and upgrades to a server. I find it very suprising that companies like Rockford Fosgate aren't jumping to be part of this site. I would think that a little icon, or even a banner at the bottom of the page, would be worth $50/month to them.
Hmm... perhaps the creation of a DIYAudio Store where we could sell audio componets direct from the manufactuer? That is if the manufactuers would pay minimal fees to have their items advertised here. The creation of an actual store and the proceeds paying for the site would likely consume way too much labor, overhead, and storage space to be worthwild.
If we could get some companies on-board, I think the problem would disappear in the long run. As the bigger DIYAudio becomes, the more money that will come in. Yearly subscriptions are going to put people off, unless they have the option of being a free member if they don't take advantage of the paid benifits. However, I bet if we put the begging basket out there, lots of people would chip in because I do not think anyone wants to see this site disappear.
Obviously, any of these options is going to take time to impliment. Thus, it is crucial we find somewhere to host the site in the meantime. 6-18 months should be plenty of time to find a permanent solution, and I would hope someone had a jack they could spare. Even if it comes down to AudioFreak configuring the server and shipping it to someone, and that person plugging it into a jack under their desk. ROFL (Risky though, the site might up and disappear for periods of time as the box is shipped around. Perhaps more than one person using redunant servers on opposite sides of the nation... yeah, that could get sticky!)
I work for a University in the data communications department. It might be possible for me to find a place to hide a server, and monitor its' bandwith close enough to keep it hidden. However, this would have to only be a short-term solution. We're currently running a DS3 and not hitting peak usage during any period... so I may be able to help.
One final comment. Would our current hosting company be willing to continue to host the site if we provided the server and paid them for the bandwith? I would hope as they have thus far had good dealings with AudioFreak and this site being on their server, that they would be willing to let us have some bandwith and rack space for a reduced cost.
And now I shall shut up, as I've said way more than I needed to.
-MC
avatar307 said:
Thanks. I figured there are plenty people out there with "junk" in their box that'd be willing to part with it, and plenty more that would pay some dear money for that "junk"
avatar307 said:
One solution to this, as you hinted to it, is limiting number of images first of all, and limiting number of posts. After the users go over their limit, their posts don't get rejected, but get put in a queue where an admin can review them and either reject, or push them through. Daily, weekely, and possibly monthly quotas should be in effect for limits though, and pooling of posts (use 1 today, carry over 4 for tomorrow) should definitely be disallowed.
I also like your idea of a diy audio store. Imagine the number of people who would buy from it if there is competitive pricing! Its only useful for rarer things, like heatsinks, cases, transformers, and other hard to find and exotic components. I don't know whether the manufacturers would allow such deals though, for diyaudio to carry their stuff, but it would be neat to see the board evolve to a parts shop too
(a *little* high on startup costs, but decent returns i'll bet! with chapters all over the world!!! and now i'm getting carried away)One last idea is to allow people to donate their "skills" to fund diyaudio. Things like make pcbs for people where they'd charge a set price, and a part of the proceeds would go to diyaudio, or build an amp for someone (there are plenty lurkers who ask to have stuff built for them b/c they're too lazy .. why not take advantage of them?)
Probably the best solution is to pass the donation basket around, move to a paid server for a short amount of time (under a year hopefully) while we try to find a better solution. The important part is to select a company that's reliable enough, and has enough resources to support an actie site like this.
One last suggestion, not sure if its feasible. Well, I know it is, but it'll take work to implement.
Store new content on a server, and store all old content on a different server. And when someone makes a post to the old content, switch servers. Advantage to this is using a free host to store the old content since it wouldn't require near enough bandwidth.
The other obvious advantage is that the required bandwith for the new host will be reduced, although I can't estimate how much or how little w/o examining the log files.
The caveats of this design is synchronising the 2 databases. I'm a comp sci major, and I can already see one thousand problems with having a database split like this, although I am convinced its quite possible with a bit of work.
Edit: Forgot about this. One advantage to having a server co-located commercially (having paid for doing so), we can sell the bandwidth as well to other people. Some people want a small site hosted for a nominal fee, so diyaudio could do that. Others might want a commercial site hosted for a little more, but less than most other people. Basically have a server that could eventually pay for itself (although one must be careful not to oversell, thus bogging down the system!)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.