Forum menu
we are so very close to Pinkbike as the world’s largest online mtb community – last August and September we passed them.
So why aren't the same issues when on PB then? There are no intrusive ads/pop ups on PB to play whack a mole with. How can they get it right with the ads?
What is the Pinkbike magazine like?
Yep. Digital subscription. Cheaper than chips.
That's not only paying for the forum, it's propping up the magazine
Yep. Digital subscription. Cheaper than chip
No, that pays for a digital sub to the magazine with forum extras thrown in.
I want a way to support the forum only. No interest in paying for a mag I don't read, or for articles I don't look at.
Admittedly, I occasionally used to browse fgf, but when it seemed that they employed a twelve year old from MBUK to write the article intros and I stopped.
So can we get a different forum sub, whereby proceeds entirely go towards ending the advertising crapfest?
How many subs would that take?
[img] 
[/img]
I want a way to support the forum only. No interest in paying for a mag I don’t read, or for articles I don’t look at.
Can you think of any business that works like that, do you think when you buy a bottle of milk from Tesco the price covers the cost of getting that milk to the shelf at the exclusion of everything else in the store? I haven't had a fire or a crime committed against me in years and my council tax goes toward these services, I'm going to email them asking for my money back. I'm probably due a TV licence refund too, it goes towards producing Eastenders.
How do you envisage that would work? Mark sets up a separate "forum only" bank account, and uses it to pay Andy and Tom when they're working on the forum rather than the rest of the site? Maybe we could have a half-price option for those who only read the Chat or the Bike forum too?
Don't be daft, man. You already have your answer, the digital subscription supports the site. If there's bits of it you don't read, that's your choice. It's 5p a day, how much cheaper do you want it to be?
Cougar - you do know the difference between a tax and a subscription?
Do you think that Sky should have one flat fee for all viewers regardless of what content they consume the way that, say, the BBC does?
Oh, and,
Access to the forum is free, so a "forum only sub" would be something of a dichotomy.
Do you think that Sky should have one flat fee for all viewers regardless of what content they consume the way that, say, the BBC does?
Do you think that the BBC should have a variable fee for different viewers depending on what content they consume in the way that, say, Sky does?
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Sky offers separate products, and charges accordingly. So does STW, you can support the website with a digital subscription or you you can add a printed magazine for an extra fee (and coffee too, now).
In any case, any revenue Sky makes isn't going to be divvied up into lots of separate accounts to be ploughed back into individual business areas responsible for, say, Sky Sports. You don't get to dictate to Sky that your individual tenner a month gets spent on more rugby coverage. That would be an insane way to do business.
Some people choose to subscribe either for their own gain or to contribute towards keeping the site afloat, and that's absolutely fantastic. Others choose not to and that's fine too. But as reasons go, "I only want to support the bits I use" is a bogus excuse.
Fair enough. But if the magazine is not doing so well and it's existence subsidised by people wanting to use an internet forum without ads, then maybe what many are paying for is NOT the magazine.
The online experience could be much nicer without the data mining, click tracking rubbish that is only implemented to keep the magazine afloat, then why not separate the two and allow people to pay for what they want? Sky has had lots of packages that no longer exist due to lack of demand.
I think it boils down to stw maximising their successful components, rather than also expecting them to fund the less successful ones too.
“I only want to support the bits I use” is a bogus excuse.
Posted 10 minutes ago
Is it though? If STW does not want my money for a particular thing when I want to give it, then fair enough. Wouldn't adding a non-magazine based sub only add to the coffers?
Wouldn’t adding a non-magazine based sub only add to the coffers?
Unless a lot of folk didn't then pay for the failing magazine and it, err, failed.
Wouldn’t adding a non-magazine based sub only add to the coffers?
But there is nothing to subscribe to, as I've already said the forum is free.
Alternatively: if you want to subscribe to the forum, it's £1.49 / month. (You get a free digital magazine with it too!)
Honestly, aside from yourself do you think there'd be much interest in such an offer? Do you reckon there's a raft of rafters thinking "I'd really like to subscribe to the forum, but £1.49 is a bit steep..."? I highly doubt it TBH.
You're asking for a forum-only subscription but really that's the wrong question. Rather the question is: are the areas you do use worth £1.49/month to you? And that's a binary answer, if no then crack on, if yes then get a digital sub and ignore the bits you don't want.
if the magazine is not doing so well and it’s existence subsidised by people wanting to use an internet forum without ads, then maybe what many are paying for is NOT the magazine.
Neither you nor I know how well the magazine is doing and can only speculate about what is or isn't good for the site. I know two things with cast-iron certainty though:
1) Mark has detailed site statistics and spends a lot of time analysing them. If an area of the site is or isn't doing particularly well, he'd know. If published articles weren't attracting visitors he'd know (and they'd stop doing them because it'd be foolish to carry on with something that wasn't working).
2) Without the magazine and the rest of the site, this forum would not exist. Now you can dress that up however you like in a "we knew what we voted for" kind of argument but STW is a digital media publishing site that happens to also have a popular forum, rather than the other way around. If anyone thinks that the forum would survive if the magazine went bang, let me know when you get back from Narnia.
let me know when you get back from Narnia.
Cougar, are you not being a bit rude to people who were only trying to be helpful?
Blockquote has stopped working again, but ...
1.49 too much for ya?
It is not about price, it is about what you are paying for.
Forum free dichotomy
The forum is certainly not 'free'. An advert and script heavy version of it is free, but an actually usable version would certainly be worth paying for.
You think people would pay for that?
I have no idea what people would pay for. Maybe give it a go and see?
No magazine, no forum
I keep hearing this. Why would there be no forum if there were no mag? The mag is not going to last forever, whereas the internet forum is not facing any such issues. Seems like a choice. Lots of publications have moved away from print and adapted. Choosing 'print or death' seems a bit over-dramatic.
Hehe, Narnia. It might be really obvious to you why, but there are other cycle based sites that seem to be leading the way without a magazine.
Let it go. STW is leading the way just fine.
Ok, it is gone (:
2) Without the magazine and the rest of the site, this forum would not exist. Now you can dress that up however you like in a “we knew what we voted for” kind of argument but STW is a digital media publishing site that happens to also have a popular forum, rather than the other way around. If anyone thinks that the forum would survive if the magazine went bang, let me know when you get back from Narnia.
Odd statement if the forum and it's data mining, crypto mining 😉 and ads makes the money.......
the only nuance is whether it's the produced content, reviews, advertorials etc drawing the clicks or the forum itself
≤10 people will ever know the truth of that
I subscribe purely because I recognise the effort it takes to try and run a business and it costs relatively nothing per month
I've never bought the mag as 99.99% of the riding/bikes/products bore the shit out of me and only read some stuff on the front page very occasionally
However the forum is a gold mine of crap information and minds who will answer a question pretty quickly
The pinkbike nugget is interesting, having been a member there since it started. It's a much better forum (and buy/sell) but actual traffic is crap outside of the niche threads. Though that's probably due to people debunking to discord groups
Edit though I'd suspect the pinkbike revenue is way above here
Cougar, are you not being a bit rude to people who were only trying to be helpful?
It was supposed to be a funny.
An advert and script heavy version of it is free, but an actually usable version would certainly be worth paying for.
And you can. It's £1.49 a month. Presumably you think this is excessive, so what sort of price point would you consider reasonable then?
I have no idea what people would pay for. Maybe give it a go and see?
No, you don't, and nor do I. I rather suspect that the site owners do though.
Consider:
Scenario 1: people who "only" want the forum sign up. Yay!
Scenario 2: people who "only" want the forum downgrade their existing subs. Not so yay!
Regardless, to my mind it's a hard sell. What are you actually offering here, an advert-free forum with no other perks? Have you seen how often some people boast about having ad-blockers they can get for free? (Often the ones doing the most complaining about how shit everything is, with no concept of irony.)
No magazine, no forum
I keep hearing this. Why would there be no forum if there were no mag?
"Magazine" here includes the digital edition and published content, not just a dead tree through your letterbox. Do you honestly believe that there will be any appetite at all for GoFar to keep a forum running if all the lights have gone out everywhere else?
there are other cycle based sites that seem to be leading the way without a magazine.
How many salaries do they provide?
I could spin up a forum in an afternoon which would be better technically in every way than STW or Pinkbike. If I was really lucky, it'd have two users.
we are so very close to Pinkbike as the world’s largest online mtb community
I would be flabbergasted if that were the case.
All pinkbikes advertising is controlled by Pinkbike directly is it not? No Google/3rd party ads.
So my 1.49 gets rid of the ALL scripts, data mining, click tracking, and all the other third party crap, adds image hosting, and makes it usable? Cool. Might consider it if I start visiting more often again.
'Magazine” here includes the digital edition and published content, not just a dead tree through your letterbox. Do you honestly believe that there will be any appetite at all for GoFar to keep a forum running if all the lights have gone out everywhere else?'
Well, if it still makes some money, then yes.
'Consider:
Scenario 1: people who “only” want the forum sign up. Yay!
Scenario 2: people who “only” want the forum downgrade their existing subs. Not so yay!'
Wouldn't scenario 2 be useful information to you, as a business? It would show the real incentive for purchasing a sub in the first place. It might not be what you want to hear, or it might be all good news. Either way you would know, rather than assuming all subs want the magazine, rather than just a better functioning forum.
Also, I have no idea how many employees PB have, but they seem to do ok.
Trafficwise, they seem to be getting around 6.2M visitors over 6 months, so that is pretty similar to STW with 1.7M a month. But with far less dodgy ads!
At least 9 bricks and mortar core office staff according to this, but that doesnt include the Radeks, levy, kazimer, RC(ret), Park, Moore and satellite staff Arthur, Sapp etc
I've no idea if/how content contributors are remunerated but there's plenty of those too.
Perhaps PB are less ethical and generate revenue via paid press release in addition to their front page banner ad.
I would be flabbergasted if that were the case.
I'm not making it up.
And you can. It’s £1.49 a month. Presumably you think this is excessive, so what sort of price point would you consider reasonable then?
Well it isn't that useable as half of the links / buttons are illegible / invisible due to the ludicrous choice of font colours (something that would be a sub 5 minute fix)
You're getting it for nothing. Stop whinging.
So my 1.49 gets rid of the ALL scripts, data mining, click tracking, and all the other third party crap, adds image hosting, and makes it usable? Cool. Might consider it if I start visiting more often again.
If you removed ALL scripts then the site wouldn't work. It removes programmatic advertising as Mark said earlier.
I don't know where this "data mining" argument has suddenly sprung from, you make it sound like a Russian bot farm. STW isn't doing anything nefarious beyond the typical social media plugins that are in use by huge tracts of the web. And you can opt out of it in your profile already, for free.
Similarly, image hosting isn't going to happen, I don't know where you've got that from. It sounds increasingly to me like you'd be better advised to go and use all those other sites you claim are better instead.
Well, if it still makes some money, then yes.
Do you imagine that's a likely outcome?
Wouldn’t scenario 2 be useful information to you, as a business?
It wouldn't be useful to me as I'm not a business. It might be useful information to Mark as he sits there working out which member of staff he can't afford to pay this month I suppose.
Ok, you know which scripts I meant! Genuinely though, is it the 'programmatic advertising' that makes this place really slow and makes my laptop sound like it's about to take off whenever I stop by here? I think that the usability of the site is responsible for all the Russian data mining/cryptomining jokes around here.
Similarly, I thought photo hosting was going to be part of the 'upgrade'. I may well have made this up, or it only applied to the classified section, possibly. Either way, ahh well.
There may well be options in the profile settings, but as I only log in to post, then log out again, that makes little difference.
As for the polite 'well bugger off somewhere else if you don't like it' comment. Not really constructive. I really want this place to do well, maybe one day to be the absolute best cycling forum ever, as the user generated information within the forums are often quite interesting, and I certainly would miss them were they to disappear.
'Do you imagine that’s a likely outcome?'
I really don't know why it wouldn't be. Income is income.
The last comment is a bit weird. Mark would rather not know? In his position I really would want to know. It is hard to run a business when you don't know why people are giving you money.
I’m not making it up
Sorry, wasn't insinuating you were. I'm genuinely surprised though.
I assume that most of those visits come from the forum activity?. Today was the first day in I've no idea how long that I visited the home page. My browser auto completes straight to stw/forum as soon as I type "s".
I've given up on mtbr and bike rumor as news sources also. I am obviously a very small sample size.
Ok, you know which scripts I meant!
I don't have the faintest clue what scripts you mean.
Genuinely though, is it the ‘programmatic advertising’ that makes this place really slow and makes my laptop sound like it’s about to take off whenever I stop by here?
Perhaps? Again, I have no idea.
Similarly, I thought photo hosting was going to be part of the ‘upgrade’. I may well have made this up
You have made it up, correct.
There may well be options in the profile settings, but as I only log in to post, then log out again, that makes little difference.
When you initially log in you get presented with privacy controls, as a few vocal users will attest to. And I mean, really, come on, meet me halfway here. You have control over third-party cookies. You can pay like the cost of half a pint per month to make the adverts go away and subsidise a resource you've been using now for like eight years now. And now suddenly your argument is that you can't be arsed to click a couple of boxes?
"I'd pay to turn off Facebook" - "you already can turn off Facebook for free" - "I don't want the bother." ****'s sake, what do you want then?
As for the polite ‘well bugger off somewhere else if you don’t like it’ comment. Not really constructive.
Perhaps not, but I'm not wrong or you wouldn't be posting here.
Say a corner shop is selling a loaf of bread for two quid. A punter comes in, says "that's an outrageous price, it's only £1 in ASDA!" The shopkeeper replies "well, go to ASDA then." The shopper says, "but ASDA is on the other side of town, it'll take me ages to get there!" To which the shopkeeper replies "then that will be two pounds."
Constructive feedback is always very much welcome and appreciated. But if your primary argument is "other sites are better..." then great, I'm happy for you that you've found somewhere better, go there then.
You've still not specified what you think a fair price for a "forum only" subscription to the free forum would be despite me asking several times now. How much less than 5p a day would that be? If you're not going to answer this question then I'm not going to reply to further posts because it's a waste of my time.
The last comment is a bit weird. Mark would rather not know?
I'm rather confident that he already does know. He's actually quite good at this, oddly enough.
Sorry, when I log in I get taken to a profile page. Never really bothered to look and see what can be turned off in the settings. Apologies if it is easier to turn off tracking than I thought it was, but I have just looked and can't find it.
Secondly, stop making it about money. I already donate to the site because it is worth something.
The idea was that maybe you could gain additional revenue by allowing access to a smooth running forum, as there seem to plenty of people who only see STW as that. Many have no idea that there is a magazine out there at all, and would not be interested in it if they were.
But they might like the smooth running forum thing and be willing to pay for just that. As for how much, In have no idea. How many lower rate forum subs would it take to make a difference to stw?
As for the people voting with their cash, I think you may be able to rough guess the number of potential sub downgrades by looking how many 1.49 subs you have vs the number of digital mag downloads. But original the idea was that STW might benefit from further income.
The Asda analogy does not really work, though.
I personally think that 1.49 is a bit cheap for a digital mag and P and have never suggested that it was outrageous. Also, Asda is exactly the same distance away from me and not a chore to visit at all.
But, I really, really like the small shop. It has roots in my local area, I know some of the staff and I occasionally enjoy the conversations of the locals who frequent it.
But, the shopkeeper has QVC shopping blaring in the background all day and keeps trying to sell me a loaf of bread and magazine bundle that has free earplugs on the front cover.
And I still want him to succeed, but I don't want or need the loaf or magazine, so it seems best right now just to shove a few quid in the tips jar.
Just maybe turn it down a bit, like asda does. Or sell earplugs on their own.
Weirdly, the bread is free in Asda. I have no idea how they do it.
I've often thought pinkbike content with STW forum would be the killer website. I go to pinkbike for actual content but occasionally (less than I used to) here for advice etc.
I'm sure they work but it was the click bait headlines etc that finally turned me off. Although a scan of the front page right now suggests they might have been toned down a tad since I last looked.
But if a number would make you happy, then for an smoothly running, accessible on all formats, pretty much bug free version of the forum, and with whatever workable upgrades are wanted by the majority of the userbase, then how about two thirds of the current cheapest sub price? Or the current sub price and bump up the magazine subscription a bit?
I would happily pay that if you just went back to the old classifieds format, but with the new image hosting and the better search options (:
I’ve often thought pinkbike content with STW forum would be the killer website. I go to pinkbike for actual content but occasionally (less than I used to) here for advice etc.
Must say, I have also longingly thought about SinglePinkTrackBikeWorld.com
That would be the one site to rule them all ...
Also, Yay, the quote toolbar is back!
But if a number would make you happy, then for an smoothly running, accessible on all formats, pretty much bug free version of the forum, and with whatever workable upgrades are wanted by the majority of the userbase, then how about two thirds of the current cheapest sub price? Or the current sub price and bump up the magazine subscription a bit?
I would happily pay that if you just went back to the old classifieds format, but with the new image hosting and the better search options
and none of that is going to happen is it, so what to do now? Do you either pay for subs or continue whining at stw for fun? if £20 a yr is too much for you let me know and ill give up the monthly Cancer charity payment I do in favour of you.
The argument isn't just about £20 per year being too much, it's also about what that is spent on. It could, for instance, go towards a better resourced Web development team. However, Mark has stated in the past that running a forum (even the biggest, busiest MTB forum in the world) isn't where his ambitions lie. Hence the magazine (paper and digital) sucking up all the money.
The argument isn’t just about £20 per year
oh I think it is very much so with cdoc
given all that is going on right now in the world he seems to be having a go because he's bored/fed up
STW isn’t doing anything nefarious beyond the typical social media plugins that are in use by huge tracts of the web.
A thing I learned early in my life was that it's not necessarily right even if all the others are doing it. Even as a subscriber I'm using Brave here with associated privacy controls as I prefer my data to remain my data. What I do is my business only, what others do is theirs.
I’m happy for you that you’ve found somewhere better, go there then.
Which is all well and good but whether you like them or not, consumers of STW content pay the bills, so they should be occasionally cuddled a bit, rather than given the finger.
Because there really is nothing like being told to "cock off, because your opinion is worthless" to turn off current and potential customers.
Because we are all STW customers, and a business should always at least appear to value their customers.
Even if there is much eye-rolling behind the scenes
so they should be occasionally cuddled a bit,
They do value our privacy.
A thing I learned early in my life was that it’s not necessarily right even if all the others are doing it. Even as a subscriber I’m using Brave here with associated privacy controls as I prefer my data to remain my data. What I do is my business only, what others do is theirs.
There’s an option in account settings under privacy for members to opt out.
I think everyone seems to be missing the big thing.
There is no forum/website/magazine divide. It is all STW.
Take one of those items away an possible the whole milking stool could topple.
I'm new to MTB - I was given loan of a MK1 Stumpy when they came out, rode it for a summer, gave it back and didn't ride a bike again until 8 years ago. All the starting on a rigid and then a hardtail and then a full suss passed me by.
I have no history in the sport and have never ridden a bike in the Lakes/Peaks/Snowdonia/Tweed Valley. I hate hardtails and loathe skinwalls.
So I have to say the magazine often holds no interest for me. I don't like it really since the product reviews vanished, even if I totally understand the reason why.
I've just renewed my print subscription though.
Why? Because if we don't do things like that we won't have a forum or whatever part of Singletrack you do like.
I worked in specialist sports mags in the golden era of the 80s/90s pre-internet when it was almost a license to print money with pretty unlimited budgets on the industries.
Those days are gone and I'd really hate to be trying to juggle things like Mark is.
Tell you what, lets approach it from a different direction. You don't want to pay or choose where your payment goes, so you decide who Mark has to fire to get the costs down.
Off you go...
I know I'm dim but I'm not following this argument at all.
I've been using the forum for 15+ years. I'm pretty lax with my online security, but my bank accounts have not been hacked, my home address has not been burnt down, my kids have not been trafficked....
I'm not seeing any need for the levels of paranoia over ads or site security.
@Cougar I have just taken out a "Forum only Subscription" based on your comments. I am looking forward to seeing the free digital subscription that it is bundled with 🙂
PS - I read the thread started by Mark and have been meaning to do it for about a week anyway....
There’s an option in account settings under privacy for members to opt out.
Easier for me to cruise around shields up as that's just another way of stating everyone else does it plus there's no guarantee that no-track requests will be honoured by the third party ad system in use.
Nice Bent.
Ok is you say so Sandwich it was about providing information to others.