A continuation.
Part 1: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1071124/
Part 2: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1071139/
Quote from mulchmania :
Politics and religion ... I am definitely interested in the new owner's view on this.[/quote]
I don't know why, but recently a few people have suddenly taken this opportunity to demand that I disallow any religious discussion altogether on the site, as we have done with politics. I guess they feel like this is a good time to see their agenda get passed, but I don't think that the time is right to even discuss a change as massive as this. Unfortunately, I had to already ban one member who saw fit to go above my head to IB and try to get them to force me to make changes related to what we allow (or don't allow) on this site. I banned that member last night.
I am not interested in changing our policy on the site at this time. I think the members are generally very happy that we allow religious discussion, and I'm not ready to disallow it. Anybody attempting to go over me to try to get this changed, will be banned. I am still in charge here, and 99% of the members like it that way. So let's drop this subject for now, shall we? Or if you're unwilling to drop this subject, then please, find another website that is more to your liking.
Quote from beckygardener :I must confess ... one of the main things bothering me about all of this is WHY? didn't NameMedia (or is it MediaName? LOL) even bother to clue Dave in on the sale of DG? And then why the 2 week delay before IB contacted him? [/quote]
Becky, this is also a mystery to me, and I would love to get an answer to it. But for some reason, NM chose to keep me completely in the dark until after the deal was done. Why? I can only speculate.
Why didn't IB reach out to me? It is simply because they were told by NM that I didn't want to continue with the site. So they were operating under that information.
On Friday, I was talking to their VP of technology, and I got a little angry at how I was being pushed out the door. I became a little verbose and lashed out at them for the way they were pushing me at the door. It was at that point that he revealed that they had been told that I had no interest in continuing along with DG, and they were just trying to figure out how they were going to be able to move forward without me.
So, when we all realized that we were completely operating under a wrong set of information, there was a storm of phone calls between IB and me, and reassurances by them to me that they indeed would certainly love to have me stay, and that this is normal that they continue to keep the founder when they acquire a site.
So the fault is not at all with IB. They simply were operating on completely incorrect information. They were quite relieved, actually, to learn that I was keen to the idea of staying with DG.
[quote="gloriag"]I have mostly fear about this buyout. Even more than before, after this year
of financial disasters based on outright fraud and lies, I don't trust the new
owners to take our fondness of Dave into consideration when $$$ is the bottom line. If, however, membership became more expensive, then the profit margin might look good to the new owners. Perhaps some of the regular non-members could consider this as a way to help save DG? It's just an idea.
I don't think a more expensive subscription will be attractive, because it doesn't make financial sense. A higher subscription cost == fewer subscriptions == fewer revenue.
I think the new owners will indeed take the members' concerns into considerations when $$$ is the bottom line. If your customers aren't happy, the $$$ aren't happy!!
[quote="tomatofreak"]Question for Dave and Michael: Do either of you envision DG on Internet Brands in its current, very interactive, incredibly visual (photos, etc.) format, complete with it's dozens of specific interest forums? I ask because I don't see anything like this on IB and wonder how it fits into their corporate interest.
Yes, I envision DG to continue to be DG, at least for as long as I am here. It wouldn't make any sense to take away the very essence of what makes DG the site that it is. All its interactivity, visuals, forums, etc, are the core of the system here, and I know they aren't wanting to take that away.
On Friday, I talked for 2 hours with their software developers and we discussed the code that operated DG. There are several hundred thousand lines of code that I have written to make DG, and it is my task to teach the IB developers all about that code. They have absolutely zero reason to throw that away and change things. Instead, their desire is to take the code base and start to build on it those improvements that have been a long time coming.
Honestly, I'm excited to see what they can do. From talking to them on the phone, they are clearly experienced people and they know programming. I have only been one person working this site for ten years, but they are a team of experienced developers and I believe they have the ability to bring additions that I have only dreamed of bringing.
For example, the search engine. Our forum search has been weak from the very beginning. We discussed this on the phone, and they recommended a system for improving it. I agree with their approach, and I proposed they make that one of their first priorities, and that's what they are doing. So we're going to get a real actual search engine, that works, and doesn't slow the rest of the site down. That is very exciting to me. And, having developers on staff to work on the site code frees me to do the more interesting things like set the direction for the site without having to worry about allocating my own time to making those changes happen.
Anyway, I do not believe they want to take away the essence of DG. I think they want to work with all of us to continue to make DG the best gardening site on the web. This is what they have told me. They think highly of DG and I believe they want to continue with making this the best site in the world.
dave
