I've noticed that not only have you taken the contact points away from this forum but "all" forums. Why should everyone be punished for the actions of the people you seem to have a vendetta against?
I've noticed that not only have you taken the contact points away from this forum but "all" forums. Why should everyone be punished for the actions of the people you seem to have a vendetta against?
It is quite elementary, Watson.
The current ban on both emails and other methods of private contact (you'll note that the option of sharing chat information has disappeared as well) exists for two reasons.
First of all, they do not want any more members to leave for greener pastures. Which is, I suppose, fair enough, although the way they've gone about it is not really wise in the grand scheme of things. Heavy-handed moderating tends to make people rebellious. Simply sitting back and waiting, and occasionally responding to new posters with actually well-thought out advice, would probably have re-populated SSM with fresh batch of people in a couple of months. I've been on message boards for over a decade and have run a couple myself. It is also a wise to reach out to disgruntled members and try to work out a compromise. I offer this insight free of charge.
The second, and more important, reason is a strategic one. They've decided that it is not to their advantage to having close networks of friendship and support form amongst members and may in fact hurt their bottom line. If you are desperate, alone, and have no where to turn, but can e-mail a message board buddy you're that much less likely to call a DB busting coach. The members here are raw material, from a business standpoint. Helping people is all well and pretty, but it doesn't pay the mortgage, the kid's college funds, and the employees.
Unfortunately, it has been discovered that people do not respond well to having privileges taken away that they once had. Something the New York Times discovered when it tried to make its online op-ed section subscription only, after having been free for years. They have recently gone back to making it available to everyone.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
That's all well and good, but as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' out for ye????" Seems to me, they've run everyone off AND the new people aren't sticking around either, because there's nothing here to see, and no substantive help to me had.
It reminds me of the big record companies. By fighting the whole MP3 download thing, they've killed their own golden-egg-laying goose. Instead, they should have realized that by CREATING SAMPLING OF THE PRODUCT, revenues, over time, go UP, not DOWN.
That's all well and good, but as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' out for ye????" Seems to me, they've run everyone off AND the new people aren't sticking around either, because there's nothing here to see, and no substantive help to me had.
It reminds me of the big record companies. By fighting the whole MP3 download thing, they've killed their own golden-egg-laying goose. Instead, they should have realized that by CREATING SAMPLING OF THE PRODUCT, revenues, over time, go UP, not DOWN.
Oh well. Not my problem, I guess.
Puppy
Oh, I quite agree. I believe they haven't gone about it wisely at all. I was simply trying to explain the reasoning behind it. If you're a business person it makes you shake your head, doesn't it?
It also doesn't quite jive with the altruism that we silly folk think should be buried deep at the core of medicine, or therapy, no matter what the bottom line ... but if it's also bad business, what possible purpose does it serve to anyone?
See, that's what puzzles me. But then I'm easily confused.
