Saturday, April 15, 2006
You see kids, THAT’S how you write blog entry that gets a response. LOL
Let me state once more that I hold the bizarre cyber friendships that I made at the SJC in very high regard. And yes, I also agree that there were flashes of real brilliance displayed at times, as my own interest in the mountains was elevated by many of the members. However, I don’t think that this experience is any different than if I had sat down at a kitchen table and listened in to the same people as they talked.
Being a webmaster myself and serving on the board of directors of an international non-profit organization, we do these things all the time.
Absolutely bang on comment Magoo – but the keyword is “non-profit”. The original OO model was decidedly non-profit as was much of the Web prior to the crash. Traditional media had no clue how to churn readers into dollar signs and the investment required payback. The new model requires targeted content and partnerships that add to the bottom line (thus the joining with away.com) not the allocation of infrastructure to something of limited albeit brilliant appeal.
Ultimately, anything that you can do for your readers to get them excited always turns into dollar signs for you. Now if you're too inept to pick up on that or you lack imagination - that's your own fault.
Again, I absolutely agree if you’re running a different business model. I guess that there’s obviously a fine line between lacking imagination and not grasping reality, but Outside as a magazine needs money to run and if when they check the accounting they see that an item isn’t contributing to that, then they have to pull it. I would also note that Outside has survived the launch of several really good magazines in their genre over the past few years, so they must be doing something right.
I mean what better way to show the readers of OO that they matter, than to do an online piece on a group formed by reading OO that have been in communication for 10 years?!!
How many of the old group could be bothered to show up here? There simply is no interest in this group, except for the few that are inside this group. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ya’all, but facts is facts. The new readers of OO since the partnership with away.com are arriving from very different audience streams than we did. You’d have better luck comparing apples and oranges…(Right at this moment my buddy Pbob is typing a beautifully flowing ‘graph about how apples and oranges can be compared because they’re both round and grow on trees. He’ll then mention that if we all remember that our ancestors climbed out of the trees before strolling across that ancient Serengeti, then maybe the apples and the oranges wouldn’t be fighting in the middle east. On the other hand my other buddy CSTerry will post that he LIKES to eat apples and oranges…)
It did and it didn't. If you're speaking of someone who lacks imagination and a concept of what the internet is, then yes, we didn't matter.
The other day a friend of mine described blogs and forum as being like public access TV in the 70s and 80s. I don’t know if you had this in the States, but up here cable companies had to set aside a channel and allow regular folk to create their own programs. The result was a lot of crap, some good and not a few pot-fueled laughing fits watching as two old Ukrainian women played the drums and a Hammond organ to classic rock anthems.
I think that this description pretty much sums up the egalitarian nature of the Web. YMMV
But if you're talking about someone who understands that SJC participants provided content for OO for free, then maybe we did matter.
Gotta, go with the “chicken or egg” argument on this comment. OO provided the space for people to spew. The people filled that space, but to refer to it as “content” is not really accurate. IMHOYMMV
We did attract some principals of the tragedy of May 1996. That is not something that "didn't really matter", in my opinion.
Some principals? One, maybe two tops. Likely a lot of people looked in, as everyone was trying to figure out what this new medium could deliver.
We would be remembering the tragic events on Everest, May 1996, an event that has brought a group of people together for 10 years. That's not something to put your nose up at. Frankly, I've never seen it happen in my online experiences (except for email newsgroups - which have been together since the beginning of internet time).
Email newsgroups are a closed community, not mass or open media by any stretch so I have not doubt that they can hold together, not unlike how the core of the SJC has held together. We are a closed community, sure we’re available to join, but if I’m being realistic – which I’m trying to be – what happens with the SJC only matters to us. And THAT’S GREAT! There are at least ten Everest 96 stories that I can think of that take precedence over the short-lived moments that were the salad days of the SJC.
And while the effort of remembering the tragedy of 96 might be worthy, I have to say that it feels disingenuous to me. What I’m hearing is not about remembering them, but us.
Again, worthy of contemplation, but I don’t believe that when asked to choose between reading the thoughts of Rob Hall’s child or those of Carrie that the decision would be difficult. I only use Carrie as an example because she’s, you know, so good and everyone likes her.
The bottom line here – is the bottom line. If any publication, especially Outside could make money on this, they would. The fact is that they can’t, because the numbers simply don’t line up. And again, I’m all for remembering, “the way we were”, but I think Blogspot is a perfect venue for that.
Let me state once more that I hold the bizarre cyber friendships that I made at the SJC in very high regard. And yes, I also agree that there were flashes of real brilliance displayed at times, as my own interest in the mountains was elevated by many of the members. However, I don’t think that this experience is any different than if I had sat down at a kitchen table and listened in to the same people as they talked.
Being a webmaster myself and serving on the board of directors of an international non-profit organization, we do these things all the time.
Absolutely bang on comment Magoo – but the keyword is “non-profit”. The original OO model was decidedly non-profit as was much of the Web prior to the crash. Traditional media had no clue how to churn readers into dollar signs and the investment required payback. The new model requires targeted content and partnerships that add to the bottom line (thus the joining with away.com) not the allocation of infrastructure to something of limited albeit brilliant appeal.
Ultimately, anything that you can do for your readers to get them excited always turns into dollar signs for you. Now if you're too inept to pick up on that or you lack imagination - that's your own fault.
Again, I absolutely agree if you’re running a different business model. I guess that there’s obviously a fine line between lacking imagination and not grasping reality, but Outside as a magazine needs money to run and if when they check the accounting they see that an item isn’t contributing to that, then they have to pull it. I would also note that Outside has survived the launch of several really good magazines in their genre over the past few years, so they must be doing something right.
I mean what better way to show the readers of OO that they matter, than to do an online piece on a group formed by reading OO that have been in communication for 10 years?!!
How many of the old group could be bothered to show up here? There simply is no interest in this group, except for the few that are inside this group. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ya’all, but facts is facts. The new readers of OO since the partnership with away.com are arriving from very different audience streams than we did. You’d have better luck comparing apples and oranges…(Right at this moment my buddy Pbob is typing a beautifully flowing ‘graph about how apples and oranges can be compared because they’re both round and grow on trees. He’ll then mention that if we all remember that our ancestors climbed out of the trees before strolling across that ancient Serengeti, then maybe the apples and the oranges wouldn’t be fighting in the middle east. On the other hand my other buddy CSTerry will post that he LIKES to eat apples and oranges…)
It did and it didn't. If you're speaking of someone who lacks imagination and a concept of what the internet is, then yes, we didn't matter.
The other day a friend of mine described blogs and forum as being like public access TV in the 70s and 80s. I don’t know if you had this in the States, but up here cable companies had to set aside a channel and allow regular folk to create their own programs. The result was a lot of crap, some good and not a few pot-fueled laughing fits watching as two old Ukrainian women played the drums and a Hammond organ to classic rock anthems.
I think that this description pretty much sums up the egalitarian nature of the Web. YMMV
But if you're talking about someone who understands that SJC participants provided content for OO for free, then maybe we did matter.
Gotta, go with the “chicken or egg” argument on this comment. OO provided the space for people to spew. The people filled that space, but to refer to it as “content” is not really accurate. IMHOYMMV
We did attract some principals of the tragedy of May 1996. That is not something that "didn't really matter", in my opinion.
Some principals? One, maybe two tops. Likely a lot of people looked in, as everyone was trying to figure out what this new medium could deliver.
We would be remembering the tragic events on Everest, May 1996, an event that has brought a group of people together for 10 years. That's not something to put your nose up at. Frankly, I've never seen it happen in my online experiences (except for email newsgroups - which have been together since the beginning of internet time).
Email newsgroups are a closed community, not mass or open media by any stretch so I have not doubt that they can hold together, not unlike how the core of the SJC has held together. We are a closed community, sure we’re available to join, but if I’m being realistic – which I’m trying to be – what happens with the SJC only matters to us. And THAT’S GREAT! There are at least ten Everest 96 stories that I can think of that take precedence over the short-lived moments that were the salad days of the SJC.
And while the effort of remembering the tragedy of 96 might be worthy, I have to say that it feels disingenuous to me. What I’m hearing is not about remembering them, but us.
Again, worthy of contemplation, but I don’t believe that when asked to choose between reading the thoughts of Rob Hall’s child or those of Carrie that the decision would be difficult. I only use Carrie as an example because she’s, you know, so good and everyone likes her.
The bottom line here – is the bottom line. If any publication, especially Outside could make money on this, they would. The fact is that they can’t, because the numbers simply don’t line up. And again, I’m all for remembering, “the way we were”, but I think Blogspot is a perfect venue for that.
