A big announcement from Dave, Part 2

We are launching bright and early tomorrow morning!

dave

Congrats!!

Dave, does the fact that you no longer have to worry about the legal aspects of this site mean that your going to return the garden watchdog to its true and original intent and return all the negative feedback you removed about Ty Ty nursery after they threatened to sue you?

It would be a true service to members so that they don't fall into a financial trap and get burned buying from them since they are not in the watcdog anymore. The US Chamber of commerce still has their negative reports on them and they are not about to get sued.. Does this buyout now mean the watchdog can be real for all companies rated?

Susan

Are the new owners reading these threads? If they want to understand us, this is the place to do it.

Jeff is the President and not only has he been reading the threads, he has posted several times. He seems like a very nice guy.

Great! I haven't had a chance to read all the postings, so I'm glad!

I'm not sure I want to be a consumer or a widget in the business of monetizing anything....There's a difference about banding with other gardeners to share information, and being part of someone's

The fact is we ARE consumers... and we do tell each other where to find [and purchase] plants and seeds and good deals... and revenue generating IS what drives our world. LOL

Besides Dave says it will be all right, and we won't be inundated with changes.
I believe in Dave. ~Blooms

I find it revolting to be "a consumer". In fact I consume as little as possible. I despise the term

I do believe these are legal references and not anything to be offended about.
Someone "provides" someone "consumes"

Yep, that's why I have gardens, so I can provide, and then eat. I generate compost, not revenue streams. I'd like to generate my own electricity, or give it up....you know, I'm just saying "For Gardeners, By Gardeners" made me happy.

"By Networks of Revenue Generating Properties, for Consumers"....I think I should hand in (or auction off? ) my handle and go home...sadly....dragging my trowel behind me.

Pati - LOL! I still don't see the dog!!!!!! That's one of the funniest threads!

dmc,
I really don't mean to flame, but I have read your thoughts on several threads. I understand your hesitation. I'm glad I came to these threads first and had a clue as to what you were referring. Dave and Terry had already calmed my fears and I did think everything was going to be all right. Now back to something you posted... NameMedia will now own everything we say here and all of our pictures.
Now that bugs me... some of the members have beautiful pics. Does this disqualify them from entering any into outside contests because they no longer own them? Will we find our gorgeous photos in a nursery magazine because it has been sold to them as a stock photo. Not to mention folks write some of their coolest thoughts on these forums, they would make great stories, some even movies of the week (lol) does this mean they are no longer our quotes but now belong to NameMedia.

Dave - Terry, please make me feel better.

Whoa! Go back an read this thread! Dave has reassured us that NameMedia will not own our words or photos.

Okay, I may be misunderstanding their terms of use. I am trying to figure out their policies from their home pages.

Dave, I have only one concern about the changes happening at this time. That is not the acquisition but the subscription fee. While I would be a liar if I said the value of membership is not worth $25.00, I do feel it is too steep for my budget. Yes, I could scrape it up but many could not. That the Garden Angel program is there for those who have a true need is wonderful, but that will help only a few on a one time basis and is not a long term solution for those who would feel uncomfortable even hinting they need the assistance.

There is also something in my mindset that says $20.00 is affordable but $25.00 is too much for something I can not classify as a necessity. I hope the amount has not yet been set in stone and will be reconsidered?

edited to correct poor spelling and a bad habit of ommiting punctuation


This message was edited Jan 28, 2007 4:56 PM

Ok, George, I did try to scan through prior to posting but couldn't find it.. and if that is true I thank you, and I feel better. This is why I came straight to this thread and asked the question and did not discuss it on other threads. It did upset me and am glad for that answer. I wonder how many others read it and are now thinking of it as gospel?

Zany, I tend to agree with you, while the $25. fee is definitely worth it, It will be hard for me and I will have to give something up... like participating in a co-op or even not purchasing something one of the advertisers are selling. I will manage, it won't be easy and it will be on my list each year... in the column of potential "give-ups" to make ends meet. At $10 or $15 it wouldn't even make it to the list, it would be a given.

frans, here's where I think you might be confused.

1. George is right - Dave has assured us that our pictures, thoughts etc. are and will always belong to us.

2. dmc's info doesn't come from Dave, Terry, Trish, their assurances or this thread. He/she has tried to interpret the info from NameMedia's site: http://www.namemedia.com/

While I, too, find NameMedia's info somewhat obtuse, I have to put my faith in our fearless leader. If Dave, et al. say that our photos and words will always be ours, then I believe them.

Marilyn

From the Acceptable Use Policy:

And since you still maintain copyright and Dave's Garden does not have exclusive rights, you are free to market your writing and photography elsewhere.

I have to say that raising the subscription does bug me to a point, no matter how much value anyone tries to put on a year's use of the site. As there are now many forums available to non-subscribers I view this as subscribers funding non-subscribers use of the site. Why should this be so? As those paying are already funding the site then it would make sense that those not paying should start to pay, I am not a charity for the benefit of those people.

The way I see it, the site has been opened to advertisers who will be funding it to a point, and now will be providing even more funding. To be able to switch off the advertising is, as I see it, the only reason to be paying a subscription now. In my opinion if NameMedia is so good at connecting consumers with companies then they should be able to rely more on that and either keep the subscription as it is, lower it, or make every user pay.

It's a numbers crunch game. Consider if all the users were asked to pay a minimal $5 to use the site, if 200,000 of the 270,000 plus members paid that would be a lot more income than charging the subscribers for more. I don't even know how many subscribers there are without checking, but last I knew I think it was over 6,000. Times 6,000 by $25 you get $150,000. Times 200,000 by $5 you get $1,000,000. Even if only half those paid it is still a lot more money. A nightmare if too many people paid by cheque, but so many use Paypal now and that is automated, no manual cheque or money handling so even a small fee is cost effective.

One word here.......inequality.

But remember...non-members don't have access to as much content as paying members do.

I think I need to walk away from my laptop and get more exercise. My own garden and my horses could use more of my time!

Being Optimistic is so much more worthwhile than being Pessimistic ..... Life is all about change. Can't grow and succeed if you aren't willing to make changes once in awhile! Change can be Challenging and Exciting!

I am thinking "Positive" thoughts and wishing all the Best to Dave & Co. for a Green, Growing, Future!


Oh, and .... Jeff, "Welcome to The Garden"! You'll Love It Here!

terry - thanks for the quote from DG's terms of use. It's been a long time since I looked at them.

Marilyn

#14 from the Acceptable Use Policies:

"Dave's Garden reserves the right to amend or change these guidelines at any time without notice. "

That's to protect DavesGarden. It would be unwise NOT to have a statement like that. "Reserving the Right" is an like an insurance polcy that covers anything they had not thought of when they wrote the rules.

Trust Dave. He's always done what's been best for us. Why would he stop now?

Does anybody remember if clause #14 has always been there?

This message was edited Jan 28, 2007 11:34 PM

Oh my gosh, I agree! I just meant so many people think that their words are theirs and theirs alone, when in reality they aren't. Most places I've been to have something similar. I don't know if it's been in there since the conception of DG, but I would think it's been there for a long time.

BTW, Dave, Trish and Terry, Congratulations!

nap, I understand the reason for #14, but it leaves the door wide open.

There are so many forum sites on the web on almost any topic. They are all riddled with advertisements.

That's what makes Dave's so wonderful. You get great content with no sales pressure.

For example, look at "GARDENWEB.COM" for example, a part of the "iVillage" set of sites - OMG what a nightmare. Open the site and you get POP, POP, POP advertisements in your face all over the place. . .at the top, on the side in the center. Try to find some good content!? The ads are so distracting. They pop all around so much, you can't concentrate on what you are reading. Or try ORGANICGARDENING.COM - on top of the page, a giant ad to buy their magazine. Try GARDEN.COM. You get "Ads by Google", "Where to by gardening tools". etc.

These companies aren't concerned about gardening, they are concerned about internet affiliate marketing (basically - "click through" revenue).

DG is such a great site...extraordanary in fact...focused on content...some of the best content anywhere...excellent features...no pressure...no POP UP ADs. I would really hate to see that change. (Please tell me it won't change. I would be so disappointed...)

T-

Apparently GW used to be a good site before it was sold, too.

Dave & Co, best wishes on your new endeavours! If it affords you more time in your personal life and with your little ones, then that's a good thing; you can't get that time back.
I have faith all will be well.

Thank you to all the good folks here (admin & members alike) for making this site what it is. I am truly grateful for all that you do.

Erynne

thanks to all for bringing up the topic of photos and use of content. I had not really thought about that. It saddens me to say that what I felt comfortable posting to a privately owned and managed website I will have to think twice about posting to a corporate owned website. This is not about trusting Dave. This is "Dave's Garden", so I figure that if people didn't trust Dave, they would not subscribe. It has nothing whatever to do with trusting Dave.
It has to do more with being a realist than being either a pessimist or an optimist. Naturally I hope for the best. Who doesn't? But life experience has taught me that while no one goes before the preacher to get married expecting to get divorced 5 years later, the divorce rate is at least 50% anyway. Meaning that priorities change and that change is not always predictable from the outset. Just because change exists doesn't mean it's always a good thing.

I have three questions for our Dave.

Dave;
(Firstly, you rock. I was a staunch anti-computer fellow before seeing your site. My garden is ten times better than it would be without this resource, and other gardeners have profited more. For such reasons I must ask the following questions that I feel are very important for all of us.)

1. When NameMedia first approached you, did they want you, or DG?

2. DG's new owners- what amount of access do they have to DG policies and all content? What is the maximum of their access to DG content and ability to change things? (Pretending, for discussion's sake that NameMedia suddenly switches out into an improbable evil company of zombies overnight)

3. When NameMedia agreed to uphold your dream of DG, (including the reduction of advertisement, lest it become like that other Garden site abovementioned.) was it contractual, in writing?

4. I said three questions. This isn't a question. Just know that if things ever do change at all (that is, the positive atmosphere of DG) following this business transaction, you'll never hear the end of it, we'll all be grilling you something terrible.

JamesCO, loyal DGer.

If Namemedia wants the silly pictures of things like...my dog in her new sheepskin coat....me in my halloween costume....and other silly pictures I have put on DG.....let them have at it!!

If they need to quote my most importatnt words...like "Shoe...what is horse poop soup?...and other silly things....they can certainly use those too.

Heck...they might like some of our Southern sayins too. Jo

I still frequent GW and I get no pop-ups what so ever. I also have pop ups blocked and java script where I don't allow. All part of Firefox, but you can also block pop-ups using IE. I have noticed that it used to be a big white S at the bottom, meaning there was nothing to block here at DG. Now, it has a small red circle with a line thru it, telling that google-analytics.com script is blocked.

My photos and words aren't a worry to me either.

Isn't horse poop soup just like fish poop soup, but bigger, much bigger??

LOL @ Badseed!
Pati

LMAO!!
Sharon