Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Physics of a bicycle!"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by: 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

randomsome1 ([info]randomsome1) wrote,
@ 2008-07-26 15:24:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:late to the party
Entry tags:wank

Math is ugly.
OTW (aka the Organization for Transformative Works/Wank)
Status: Tax exempt, .org (usually associated with not-for-profit groups)
Income: Good question, though we know there was at least one straight-up $500 donation and there's a decent number of official members.
Accomplishments: Nothing.
It takes two weeks tops to get a wiki together. It takes maybe two hours to attach a messageboard to a site. The OTW's been promising these things and more for over a year--and while doing so, they've taken in an unspecified amount of money as donations and membership fees for what continues to be a Livejournal-based community.
People starting movements/freaking out over this? 0 ETA: I'm told there's some, somewhere.

Fanfiction.net (aka The Pit, Pit of Voles)
Income: 60-80 million dollars a year ETA: Numbers are being called into question. For all my luck they're borked, though the source that triggered (I repeat, triggered, not made) the original fanthro post was certainly someone in the know.
Income, though? Still a lot. ETA2: This one says more than 4 million a year.
People starting movements/freaking out over this? I seem to remember seeing . . . one.
Seriously, let's crunch some numbers and make this a little more real to people. The data from '07 said ff.net gets 1-4 cents per adview. They have between one and four ads per page--anyone who's loaded a page there knows this.

We'll take the middle-of-the-road numbers: two and a half cents per ad, about two and a half ads per page.

.025 x 2.5 = .0625 per pageview.

Now let's expand upon that. My three most-read stories, between them, have more than 365,000 hits.

365000 x .0625 = $22,812.50

If the numbers are right, Fanfiction.net has easily made more than twenty-three thousand dollars off just a few of my stories alone.

Twenty-three thousand dollars.

That's more than half my student loans. That's the Master's degree I couldn't afford to go back for. And the more I sit and look at that number, the more pissed off I get. For that much you'd think they'd be on the ball with plagiarism reports, or have coding that didn't eat your formatting and wording, or have ads that didn't give you spyware every few days. You know, like Fanlib did. Whoops, Fanlib was transparent about its intentions to make money, and talk of making money in regards to fandom is sorta like summoning the Antichrist and inviting him to bang your mom on the dinner table. Onlookers tend to flip the fuck out.

(And even if the numbers are borked and we shoot for the extremely low end, they've made enough off my writing in total to pay off my car.)


Is fandom massively spazzing out over ff.net, or the membership dues paid to an essentially dead organization, or any of the other half-dozen things that are making money off fans/fanworks? No, they'd currently rather be piling on Fanhistory for being a dotcom, for having a single ad per page, and for Laura H. trying to market the thing. And since Fanhistory's venture capital page went up around March, this dogpile's just a little late to the party.



I'll start laughing when it's funny.



Long multi-faceted Fanhistory.com wank relatively short: Yes, I know Laura H's gone about things the wrong way. Yes, Laura knows she's gone about things the wrong way. Was she/Fanhistory clear that if someone on Fanhistory wanted their name or page down, they should say so? Yes. Would it have been done? Yes--if worse came to worse, I would've done it myself.

Does the entire name fuss look remarkably like what happens when a few spastic Black Jewels Trilogy fans go through ff.net reporting & flaming everyone they see because they say Anne Bishop said she doesn’t want fic written? Hell yes. (If Bishop doesn't want fic written, Bishop would tell ff.net herself. It's only the big girl thing to do.)

Has this entire mess, initiated under the flag of protecting someone's RL-name from association with their fandom pen name, only served to out that connection to however many people didn't know of it yet? Yes. And is that connection still made in numerous other locations online--most notably by the person herself? Yes.

Has there been this much internet attention because the target isn't exactly a well-liked individual, & because her opinions don't tend to mesh with everyone else's? Yes.

Has Laura since said she's going to change her methods of interaction, espc. in relation to the wiki? Yes. And even though it's only been ugly when she tries to engage the shrieking dissenters, she's got a public apology in the works. So if that was the goal, the goal's been attained.

Me, I'm a dirty optimist. I believe people can change if they want to. I also believe they'll need backup and direction to keep them out of trouble--a theory of social responsibility, in a way. It applies to everything. You wanna see things get better? Help out. You just wanna sit around and bitch? You're part of the problem.

So I'm putting my money--or my lack of it--where my mouth is. It's a wiki. Wikis are collaborative. Laura's taking a step back, in the interests of Fanhistory and its future. Now it's time for the rest of the community to decide where they stand.


(Post a new comment)


[info]lady_ganesh
2008-07-27 12:43 am UTC (link)
Your HTML is borked. I think your argument might need a little work too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randomsome1
2008-07-27 12:43 am UTC (link)
Always.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2008-07-27 12:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-27 02:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2008-07-27 02:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-28 04:52 am UTC
A backlash is still a backlash. - [info]dharma_slut, 2008-08-02 02:16 am UTC
Re: A backlash is still a backlash. - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-02 02:55 am UTC

[info]holetoledo
2008-07-27 12:54 pm UTC (link)
DDDD:

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randomsome1
2008-07-27 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, it's a thing of suck, misinformation, black&white thinking, and shrieking hysteria.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]elfwreck
2008-07-28 03:00 pm UTC (link)
Her policy is not "if you don't want your name on FH, I'll remove it on request." It's "I'll remove it if I decide you're not a BNF. BNFs have no right to privacy, not even of info from private emails & locked posts."

But that's not what's outraged people. It's annoyed several, but that's not the cause, only the trigger, for the current dogpile.

1) She outs people, and shares bad info, and refuses to correct either of these; in the case of outing, it's "people deserve to know the truth;" in the case of bad info, it's "Lies are more entertaining than no info at all."

2) She not only runs for profit, she's attempting to sell for BIG profit. And she's actively pushing other people do do work for her, for which she gains profit, and they gain... the dubious right of placing IP under her complete control.

3) She's annoying. She's pushy. She's bitchy. She's in-your-face argumentative. She's biased. She's deliberately wanky. None of these are sins in fandom... but they do cut down on community participation in one's projects.

4) She deliberately broke what she knew was one of (online, LJ) fandom's most precious rules. It doesn't matter how sensible the rule is, nor how easy it is to get the info in other ways--she decided that the rule was irrelevant, and since it couldn't be enforced legally, she could not only ignore it, but flaunt that.

5) For months--years, maybe--she's been giving incomplete instructions to her moderators, and then banning them when they fail to follow what she meant, instead of what she said.

6) Is she honestly surprised at how this has turned out? She's made a huge pile of enemies with long memories; her wiki is dead... because a wiki has to be collaborative to grow, and if she opens it to the public, she risks massive edits and deletions from dozens of directions. Can't ban them all, especially when some of them know how to use proxy servers.

I believe people can change if they want to.

So do I. The key point is "want to." Does she want to change? Or does she want fandom to fill her wiki-structure with pretty details, rake in the money from their efforts, and continue to insult them and insist that her ideas are better than theirs?

You wanna see things get better? Help out.

I volunteer with various OTW projects. I'm looking forward to a wiki that doesn't remove info the owner disagrees with, and allows people to manage their own privacy.

I've edited a couple of entries on fanhistory... mainly to ad advertising for stuff I care about. I haven't added any "history," because it's obvious she's not trying to assemble a history. She's trying to assemble a cash cow, and my interest in making other people money is limited. Not nonexistent--but I want to either get something personally from it, or feel the community got something from it. Even if it's just "the feeling of having helped."

It says a lot, that she's managed to create a wiki where many people don't feel that when they edit it.

Do I care about ff.net's income? Not much--because the owner doesn't participate in fanwank. He doesn't try to influence what is, and is not, on the site, other than banning some content. (Which is why I don't post or read there, but I don't object to it existing.) He doesn't micro-manage and "fix" people's stories. He doesn't treat the membership like they've agreed to be his employees.

(Reply to this)


[info]blktauna
2008-07-28 04:47 pm UTC (link)
One of the reasons I don't support livejournal is because they make revenue off the back of my work and there is no opt out. No thanks.

The fanwiki is the same. I was neutral about it before I found out she wanted to use it as a marketing tool, but now I can't say as I support it at all. She wants a wiki maintained by fans but then wants to sell them and their gathered information to advertisers. I go to some lengths to minimise my exposure to advertisers. One method is to not participate in spaces where it is known that my data will be collected.

The wiki irritates people because it was never made plain to the casual user this data was being mined to be sold and there is no means of removing data you want removed. When this sort of info comes out, it's bound to make people angry.

The pit of voles has always been pretty up front about who and what they are, which is why there hasn't been outrage.

If you think there's no bitching about the OTW you must not be looking very hard. Oh and the .org suffix has been open for general use for years.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randomsome1
2008-07-29 03:01 am UTC (link)
I'm trying to figure out where you're getting that she intends to sell fan contact information. Have you looked at the articles for random fans? There's links to their stories, maybe a link to their blogs, and that's it. Laura has a personal list of contact information (which isn't associated with FH), but it has not been sold, nor does Laura intend to sell it. (This current interpretation of her as a big money-grabbing evil-head somehow ignores how if a company wants fans' information, they're gonna mine ff.net or Lj rather than pay a middle-person to tell them who has an Lj or ff.net account.)


Once again, please re-read the post (as misreadings and overreactions have been a big part of the overarching problem). The "no OTW bitching" was in relation to their intake of money + delay/lack of product. If there's grouching about that then I've missed it. The .org explanation came with the modifier of "usually." Ff.net doesn't have a link on their front page to their financial information, which makes them not as up front as FH--yet FH is the one to garner the outrage over finances.

The gender perspective thing brought up by one of the commenters is becoming more and more interesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]blktauna, 2008-07-29 03:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 03:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blktauna, 2008-07-29 03:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blktauna, 2008-07-30 02:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 02:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blktauna, 2008-07-30 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-29 04:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 02:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-30 03:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 03:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lastscorpion, 2008-07-31 02:56 am UTC
*coughs*
[info]yonmei
2008-07-28 05:14 pm UTC (link)
I ♥ you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randomsome1
2008-07-29 03:40 am UTC (link)
*checks out your posts*
I think I like you too! :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lydiabell
2008-07-28 05:58 pm UTC (link)
Ff.net gets 1-4 cents per adview.

1-8 cents per *thousand* pageviews, actually, according to AdBrite. That's for text ads. Up to 50 cents per thousand pageviews for banner ads.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]empink
2008-07-29 12:45 am UTC (link)
*ROFLs at new meaning of this post's title*

Uh, OP? You probably want to take another look at your calculations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]randomsome1
2008-07-29 01:53 am UTC (link)
AFAIK, that's for one particular kind of ad from one particular place. Ff.net gets ads from five different sites. Further numbery discussion--with the same sort of question--takes place here. Her explanations aren't as clear as I'd like, but . . . Well, what kind of numbers did you think gives other entertainment-type startups the ability to land several million in venture capital, hm? It sure as hell isn't a measurement of the amount of fandom goodwill in the world.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lydiabell, 2008-07-29 02:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 04:12 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-08-07 10:40 pm UTC

[info]slashpine
2008-07-28 09:01 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for posting this. Looking over comments, I have to say there's a lot of fuzzy on just who's making just how much money... I think that's part of the issue maybe, that there isn't a lot of clarity. (More smoke = more shouts of "fire!")

But I really, really like that you've raised this issue of why money is Evol when after all, it takes money for the technology to float fandom. So someone's gotta be making some. Why is it that fans -- who are mainly women -- aren't supposed to be "tainted" by it, yet we're perfectly ok with the men who host archives like FFN and run the sites like LJ (and IJ) making as much as they can? If we don't like the ads (LJ!) we simply go somewhere else, we don't paint the site owner as an immoral skank who doesn't deserve to associate with us other, morally pristine fans.

Yes, the whole FH-wiki statement of aims, the remove-me process, and RL vs. fandom names thing, were handled badly. I also think there have been strong personal animosities and entrepreneurial jealousies driving this on both sides, not just fandom "principles" or norms.

But the Making Money is Evol thing? I agree: WTF is with this, and especially the big double standard?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randomsome1
2008-07-29 01:30 am UTC (link)
I like your thinking. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]blktauna
2008-07-29 03:54 am UTC (link)
Why is it that fans -- who are mainly women -- aren't supposed to be "tainted" by it,

Well generally because it's frowned upon to make money on someone else's intellectual property (unless of course you license it or want to be sued). Being women doesn't have much to do with it. Especially in the land of fandoms that I come from where there really aren't many women.

If we don't like the ads (LJ!) we simply go somewhere else, we don't paint the site owner as an immoral skank

Did you ever read LJ announcements? Plenty of people call LJ owners immoral skanks over advertising. Probably still do. But I don't support LJ so I don't know what those threads look like anymore.

yet we're perfectly ok with the men who host archives like FFN and run the sites like LJ (and IJ)
There's a difference between a business built on someone else's intellectual property and a service business.

I do not support ffN because it's crappy and I don't like using it. So I don't. I do not support LJ because the asshattery and disregard for the customer is appalling. I support IJ because it is a customer oriented service where I feel I'm getting value for my $. If one day squeak turns out to be an asshat I will walk away from here (may it not be so). I have paid subscriptions at another service run by fans.

No one is against a buck, it's all how you do it and with who's intellectual property.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-29 08:03 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-29 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]blktauna, 2008-07-30 02:32 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-30 06:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-07-30 03:35 pm UTC

[info]yonmei
2008-07-29 07:34 am UTC (link)
But the Making Money is Evol thing? I agree: WTF is with this, and especially the big double standard?

It's one of those things that's a convenient stick with which to beat Fans We Don't Like (FWDL, for a given value of W). I've seen it happen before - that was partly why I groaned and hid my head when this came up.

"She's making money out of fandom!" is a great way to sic the fannish mobs, and can be said of a great many fannish BNFs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]slwatson
2008-07-28 11:43 pm UTC (link)
You wanna see things get better? Help out.

No.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]empink
2008-07-29 12:47 am UTC (link)
Might I just say that your response filled me with glee?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]slwatson, 2008-07-29 12:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 01:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 01:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 01:31 am UTC

[info]empink
2008-07-29 01:17 am UTC (link)
Okay, you say this: You wanna see things get better? Help out. You just wanna sit around and bitch? You're part of the problem.

And THEN (and this is what gets me), then you go on and say this: Does this mean people shouldn't be responsible/accept personal responsibility when it comes to putting information about themselves out there? I don't think so. I believe I'm in a good neighborhood, but I won't leave my doors unlocked, you know?

I think I want to be part of the 'problem' here, thanks.

What is truly hilarious here, though, is how you seem to be making the same exact argument Laura did in that fanthropology post. Muted, yes, but the same at heart. I.e., it is the outee's fault if they get outed, because the internet is forever, and there are assholes on the internet. Except in her case, she forgot to add a little asterisk and footnote saying, warning, I am one of those assholes. Warning people to be vigilant and to have a little perspective as far as privacy on the internet goes is one thing; blaming the victim is another thing entirely, especially when you're the asshole you're pretending to warn people about. Imho, Laura Hale can cling to the idea of "personal responsibility" as regards privacy all she wants; it doesn't make what she did with her own "personal responsibility" any less wrong.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 03:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-29 04:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 04:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-29 05:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 02:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-30 03:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-01 04:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-08-01 04:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-01 05:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-08-01 06:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-01 06:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dharma_slut, 2008-08-02 12:56 am UTC

[info]wingedrivers
2008-07-29 01:28 am UTC (link)
Thank you so much for posting this.

These comments make me lawl, simply because a company out there is making shitloads of money off of our fan-creations and the posters more interested argueing with you then actually willing to do something about it. (doesn't matter if it's one cent per view or one cent per thousand views, it's still a lot of money for a site that hardly takes care of its users)

Sad thing is, what can we do to make people give a shit?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 02:44 am UTC

[info]hector_rashbaum
2008-07-29 04:49 am UTC (link)
Was she/Fanhistory clear that if someone on Fanhistory wanted their name or page down, they should say so? Yes. Would it have been done? Yes--if worse came to worse, I would've done it myself.

But saying this ignores that, in at least one instance, a name that was removed on request was put back when no one was looking, by Laura herself (after Laura approved the initial removal). Because, yes, while an opt-out policy re: privacy is problematic in general, people do make mistakes, and if the policy really were "ask and it shall be removed" then that's, as I see it, not a problem.

What is a problem is Laura saying "ask and it shall be removed" and doing "ask and it shall be removed until your back is turned, depending on how I feel about you", and that's hardly a) an open policy or b) a policy you can expect people to embrace with open arms.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-07-29 08:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hector_rashbaum, 2008-07-29 04:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-07-30 03:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hector_rashbaum, 2008-07-30 04:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-07-30 04:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hector_rashbaum, 2008-07-30 04:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-07-30 04:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kayjayuu, 2008-07-30 07:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-31 03:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-07-31 07:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lokifan, 2008-08-02 10:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-02 11:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-03 08:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-04 08:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lokifan, 2008-08-04 09:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yonmei, 2008-08-04 10:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-04 12:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-29 12:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hector_rashbaum, 2008-07-29 04:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]heatherwells.myopenid.com, 2008-07-29 04:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-29 05:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hector_rashbaum, 2008-07-29 06:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 01:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-30 03:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 03:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elfwreck, 2008-07-30 04:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 04:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 01:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hector_rashbaum, 2008-07-30 02:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-07-30 03:08 am UTC
Words may never hurt me
[info]doire
2008-08-01 07:12 pm UTC (link)
I just wanted to say, because this is the third time I've come across it today, that I find the word spazz very offensive when used to convey a negative meaning.

In the UK it was, IIRC, polled as the eighth most offensive word. I suspect it's another of those "divided by a common language" things, but I thought I would say since you may not be aware of its effect on some readers.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Words may never hurt me - [info]unlikely2, 2008-08-01 08:29 pm UTC
Re: Words may never hurt me - [info]beedekka, 2008-08-01 08:47 pm UTC
Re: Words may never hurt me - [info]franzeska, 2008-08-01 09:14 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
Re: Words may never hurt me - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-01 10:40 pm UTC
Re: Words may never hurt me - [info]doire, 2008-08-01 09:51 pm UTC
Re: Words may never hurt me - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-01 10:08 pm UTC

[info]copracat
2008-08-02 03:48 am UTC (link)
This comment is reposted because IJ chose not to log me in and so my comment was posted anonymously.

If you're seeking facts the OTW's annual report, including financial statements, can be found
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] here</a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

This comment is reposted because IJ chose not to log me in and so my comment was posted anonymously.

If you're seeking facts the OTW's annual report, including financial statements, can be found <a href="http://transformativeworks.org/about/reports/index.html"here</a>

(Reply to this)


[info]lokifan
2008-08-02 10:46 am UTC (link)
The thing is that in fandom, there are three big rules.

1. Credit. You always, always, always credit other people for their work.
2. Anonymity. We choose to stay anonymous; if we don't that's our choice, and no one has the right to put our names up if we ask for it to be otherwise. No, not even for the sake of 'history'.
3. Profit. We don't attempt to make any, our work is a labour of love.

Now I can certainly see your point re the third one. The thing is that LH has clearly said she wants to make a profit off her wiki - even while she tries to get others to help for free, and talked about how it's for the good of fandom. Personally I'm quite pleased she's been so upfront about it but that doesn't make her use of volunteers to make money, any more palatable. People have chosen to help and have been banned for making decisions she disagrees with.

Besides, the three 'rules' are important to the community, and we're self-policing. I'm sorry it's become such a dogpile, but frankly there's a reason for it. This is bigger than plagiarism wanks because there's the issue of credit; bigger than 'for profit' wanks because there's the issue of anonymity.

Besides, the fourth big rule is 'don't be a troll'. Starting wank deliberately for page hits is not OK. LH seems to have no respect for the wider community or community norms. And I don't mean 'disagreeing with most people'. I mean 'not following basic ideas that help us feel safe'.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-02 10:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lokifan, 2008-08-02 10:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-02 10:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lokifan, 2008-08-02 10:29 pm UTC
Here via link surfing
[info]bubble_blunder
2008-08-02 09:25 pm UTC (link)
I don't want this to sound like I don't believe you, so please don't take it that way. I am simply curious. Where did you get the info on ff.net's 2007 price per ad view? The reason that I am so curious is that I was under the impression that ads are usually priced either at a pay per click or a pay per thousand impressions. So I'm curious if the pay per view number is accurate or if whoever put the 2007 data together misstated something. And the reason that it sounds so crazy to me is because of the following:

Based on the numbers you gave above for your most read fics, and based on an assumption that there are 1 million fics on ffn, I tried the following:

365,000/3 fics = 121,666 approx hits per fic

Now, since those are your most read fics, I know that's a pretty high number. So, since all I'm really trying to do is come up with examples, I decided to drop that number down to 1,000 as an average hit count per fic.

1,000 hits per fic * 0.0625 per page view = 62.50 average income per fic

62.50 avg income per fic * 1,000,000 fics = $62,500,000 in income

Now granted, after paying for operations their actual profit would be much lower. But this still seems to be an astronomical amount of income, especially since you state that the 60-80 million per year amount has already been called into question.

So, I'm curious about the whole thing now. I love numbers. But if these are at all accurate then ffn is definitely making a major fortune off of fandom's backs (especially since I'd be willing to bet that my 1,000 hits per fic average is low, and since I'm not sure how that actually corresponds with the fact that a lot of fics are multi-chaptered and therefore count for more than 1 page view (your numbers may have already taken that into account, I don't know).

~Lisa

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Never mind - [info]bubble_blunder, 2008-08-02 09:51 pm UTC
Re: Never mind - [info]randomsome1, 2008-08-02 10:07 pm UTC



Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs