SP does a WMW

47 comments

Sitepoint are currently seeing an exodus of volunteer staff moderators.

It was sparked when Chris Beaseley aka. Aspen, the moderator for the SEO and Google forums - and voted most popular SitePoint member 2005 - had his SitePoint blog removed along with his moderator status.

Although no public - or claimed private - reason was given, it's acted to demoralise other Sitepoint volunteers, who are accusing SP of acting in a corporate manner and resigning mentor and team leader positions.

SP is claimed to have new management staff and looking to move "in a new direction".

While change is integral to the internet, and doubly so to forums, it can only be disappointing to see another webmaster forum losing key volunteers over changes in the direction of management.

Comments

No Offense

Being someone else's moderator and blogging for them, especially for FREE, is about the dumbest thing on the planet if they're making money from the operation and you're not.

Yes, yes, it's all about the extra exposure of the mods, which you can also get from just being a contributing member and blogging on your own as people will find you if you have anything useful to say.

Oh well, Aspen found out the hard way.

I always thought Aspen was a

I always thought Aspen was a bit of a bastard...one of the "prove it to me" crowd who never offered the same evidence when he himself threw out incorrect information.

Lets not forget that this may in some part be a marketing ploy for him to promote his own forums.

Exposure

To be fair, the blog got him an immense amount of exposure and I'm assuming business to top it off. In the thread he notes he grossed 700k last year. So either that blog and his status got him a lot of business, or he just didn't feel the need to make a few bucks off a blog of his own.

Otherwise, I'm surprised it took this for a lot of people over there to realize that SP is as corporate as they come. I couldn't fathom why they would let him go considering he was one of the hardest working guys on the forums. It also caused 2-3 other mods to go with.

But it is eerily like WMW. A forum gets big enough that those in power feel that mods and posters are replaceable parts. In the end their positions get filled with less experienced and knowledgeable individuals and the entire forum gets dumber.

"the entire forum gets dumber!"

Seems that there is more money to be made from the dumber end of the spectrum, though - more people for a start.

Um....

...where have I seen that before...

>> A forum gets big enough that those in power feel that mods and posters are replaceable parts. In the end their positions get filled with less experienced and knowledgeable individuals and the entire forum gets dumber.

Oh yeah, must agree.

The Ignorance is Deafening

IncrediBILL thinks I'm too stupid to make money online. There are two main reasons I moderated at SitePoint. The first is loyalty, I'd been a member there since 1999, I got a lot of help through there. The second is exposure. It is the largest non-adult webmaster forum on the planet. Plus when you make as much money as I do you don't need to profit from every activity you do online.

Aaron Wall thinks I'm a bastard and this is a publicity stunt. This is the same Aaron Wall who first learned of SEO in what? 2003? Oh, and yes, I require people who throw out half baked theories on a bi-monthly basis to offer proof, what is wrong with that?

In the 7 years since I've been focusing on SEO I've seen dozens and dozens of half baked theories that ended up being wrong. Everything from outgoing links helping to over optimization penalties after the Florida update. Years ago I was practically the only person who was saying that outgoing links on your site cost your site PR (through less PR sent through internal links), most people said I was crazy, now people finally accept that as fact.

I also always offer my own proof. I made a whole site back in 2003 (probably before you even got online) http://www.searchenginelabs.com/ for the express reason of testing the halfbaked theories of the day. Also... you're right I've never provided proof for incorrect information... I don't give incorrect information. Either I am absolutely sure of something, and have proof, or I preface it by saying that this is merely what I think, or what I think is the most likely scenario. I never pass off my own personal theories as facts.

Honestly Aaron, I thought you liked me considering we're both on Daniel Brandt's hitlist, but I guess not.

Also this is no publicity stunt. I have never put any major effort into promoting my own forums. They've always been more of a vanity project than a money making project. I always figured that 10 years down the road they'd be making good money, but for now I was happy with letting them grow slow.

The other reason this is not a publicity stunt is that if it was I would have required the collusion of SitePoint to do it considering they publicly stated they canned me.

thePhenomenal gets it right, mostly. The only thing he is wrong about is that the blog generating business for me. Unlike most other people in this industry (or typical webmaster forum members if you will) I don't take on clients, or at most one or two a year just to spice things up. I work exclusively for myself. This was actually an issue when I started blogging for them because the pay is next to nothing. Every other blogger they have does take on clients and so they don't mind the low pay.

Really, the reason I decided to blog for them was for the status, then later as a promotional vehicle for the Kit that is now never going to be published. Not that I crave status, but being well known and influential means that ad networks and affiliate managers will go out of their way to please me. That could mean better rates or exclusive access. So it was a business decision.

Seems that there is more

Seems that there is more money to be made from the dumber end of the spectrum, though - more people for a start.

That is entirely true from my experiences...the more beginner level my content the more profitable it is.

2003?

I think the born on date is exceptionally irrelevant. There are probably dozens of SEOs who are better at it, work less, and make way more cash than you and I in spite of starting more recently.

Oh, and yes, I require people who throw out half baked theories on a bi-monthly basis to offer proof, what is wrong with that?

That is why I thought lowly of you. It was the presumption that if it was not in your realm of experience that it must be wrong or require extensive proof. And it was not just the message...also the tone that mattered. You were rude to me on multiple occassions without reason...other than maybe a power trip of some sort? Or perhaps burned out by reading lots of garbage theories for months?

I guess forums are a cycle though...you sorta have to back away from them after a while as they stop offering as much personal value.

Daniel Brandt's hitlist

hehehe...well I do like you for that, and have linked to the watch watch ;)

Anyone here remember the

Anyone here remember the Warrior forum in 97 and 98? http://www.warriorforum.com/forum/

It was always, (and to my knowledge still is), 100% about online marketing and that was about 70% bulk email and the other 30% about SEO back then.

All of a sudden, (over the course of about two years), things changed. SEO began taking prominence as an online marketing strategy over UCE. Alan Says, (the owner of the site), began taking steps to eliminate any discussion about email marketing in an attempt to completely disassociate itself from what had helped to build the community in the first place. This created quite a turmoil and a lot of tension resulting in many mass exoduses. It could not be helped. Things that directly affected the site and it's purpose was changing and regardless of how much some members resisted the change, nonetheless, it was there. To survive, Mr. Says had little choice but to accept the changes and adapt.

What we are all seeing now is pretty much the same thing. SEO isn't going away any more than bulk email did, but the factors that affect the industry are changing and that will force change on the places that were built on the changes that came before.

People instictively resist change while companies/businesses embrace it. This casues feelings of loss, confusion, betrayal, and often resentment. It can't be helped as it is just a natural occurence most of us call progress. Maybe we just call it that when it isn't affecting us directly? Anyway ----

We are going to be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing over the next few months as we move further and further from cloaking, blog spamming and hidden text, (some call it old school SEO, whatever that is?) and more and more towards manipulating communal perceptions, (new school SEO?), and more of a traditional foundation in advertising philosophies, (you know, all that stuff most SEO's talk a lot about but actually know little of. Demographics, real ROI and not just click to conversion ratios, cost of goods, customer acquisition costs, taxes, depreciation, asset allocation, blah, blah,blah), coupled with internet specific expertise.

If the market for an expert in PR leakage diminishes while the market for an expert on community manipulation increases, the PR expert needs to be replaced with a CM expert. We have a conflict.

Using this specific topic as an example, first let me say that I don't personally know CB. I have read a lot of his posts and through them have a great deal of respect for him so I don't mean this as any kind of attack. But he said:

>Years ago I was practically the only person who was saying that outgoing links on your site cost your site PR (through less PR sent through internal links), most people said I was crazy, now people finally accept that as fact.<

This statement is kind of the death sentence for the concept of old school SEO, (whatever that is?). >now people finally accept that as fact.<<

Actually that is NOT what people are accepting as fact. This statement is being made in the present tense when it should be made in the past tense. What people are accepting as fact now is that PR doesn't matter much anymore. The failure to identify and address the REAL problem is why the need for change from the company's perspective.

It is not about loyalty or service or being right when you said what you said back then. It is about clinging to what was instead of embracing what is to come.

Outgoing links

Just a Question if outgoing links don't help, and as you say you don't publish incorrect information, care to explain this serp:

site:searchenginelabs.com "A Tale of Two Cities" On the data center I see the pages with the links out rank higher than those with no links out.

Also for "call of the wild" and the The Three Musketeers"

Excuse me but my loaf of bread appears to be half-baked and ready to come out of the oven ...

(Sorry but it missed the end

(Sorry but I screwed up the end of my original post.I guess I'm getting TOO old school)

Actually that is NOT what people are accepting as fact. This statement is being made in the present tense when it should be made in the past tense. What people are accepting as fact now is that PR doesn't matter much anymore. The failure to identify and address the REAL problem is why the need for change from the company's perspective.

It is not about loyalty or service or being right when you said what you said back then. It is about clinging to what was instead of embracing what is to come.

Or perhaps burned out by

Or perhaps burned out by reading lots of garbage theories for months?

ding ding ding ding. Exactly. I'm a practical cut to the chase kind of guy, so after answering the same ridiculous questions repeatedly I know I come off as standoffish, cold, or rude.

site:searchenginelabs.com "A Tale of Two Cities" On the data center I see the pages with the links out rank higher than those with no links out.

Honestly, 3 results isn't enough to prove it works. Especially considering each result group contains 2 link examples but only one no link example (meaning, by pure probability, this is a likely random result). Also one of the #1 results is the non-keyword link. So there is inconsistency across the results.

Still, this is the first time in 3 years that that site has shown such a result. So it could very well be that with Google's new Big Daddy update that they are starting to consider outgoing links. Nice find. Still, I doubt they're given much weight. This definitely deserves further investigation.

Really, I care more about the integrity of the test than the end result. So I'm not upset if things have changed and the test now shows a different result than it used to.

In response to what MASSA said... My SEO philosphy is very fundamental. Good keywords, good incoming links, good internal link structure, search engine friendliness. I consider those concepts to be without expiration date. I've never promoted blackhat things like invisible text, stuffing, or cloaking. Plus, I didn't blog for SitePoint on SEO. My blog was more or less about ad networks & affiliate programs.

I also disagree with your post on principle. I find individuals to be far better at adapting to changing environments than corporations or large organizations.

PR Matters

Actually that is NOT what people are accepting as fact. This statement is being made in the present tense when it should be made in the past tense. What people are accepting as fact now is that PR doesn't matter much anymore. The failure to identify and address the REAL problem is why the need for change from the company's perspective.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks PageRank doesn't matter is kidding themselves.

PageRank is an indicator, like the speed dial on your car. It is an approximation of the weight of your incoming links to any given page. Saying it doesn't matter is like saying incoming links doesn't matter.

Some people think that PageRank used to be considered in Google's algorithm directly, like believing if you had a higher PageRank you'd rank higher than other sites no matter about topic or on page factors. This was never the case.

The only things that have changed is that Google now has more filters for detecting PageRank manipulation through artificial linking schemes. Additionally Google is now more heavily modifying your "bonus" from incoming links by the topics of the sites linking to you. They've always looked at both the weight passed through the link and the topic of the linking site, they simply look at topic more now.

This is of course a vast simplification, but the point is that PageRank (incoming links) still matters, its just being modified and or filtered more in the algorithm.

Of course the end result of all of this is that now you need to focus on getting links from topically similar sites, rather than unrelated sites or simply relying on topically related anchor text to help you.

I care more about the

I care more about the integrity of the test than the end result.

But perhaps that care caused you to make tests that were less than adequate so that the expected results were achieved.

The outbound link...does it point at one of the most important pages on that same topic? How does your site and page fit in that portion of the web?

Is it even practical / worthwhile / useful to make isolated tests on isolated portions of the web and then assume those results will apply to the well connected pieces of the web?

How does usage data and page layout affect your test? How do the regular algorithm and the site specific search algorithm differ? When you set up your own testing framework you set up your own boundaries...and Google has far more data than we do.

Mechanical answers work up to a point, but unless you are mass automating stuff SEO is far more social...as indicated in Massa's posts

But perhaps that care

But perhaps that care caused you to make tests that were less than adequate so that the expected results were achieved.

One fundamental concept of scientific research is that theories only need one negative result to be proven incorrect, but they can never be proven absolutely 100% corrent no matter how many positive results you have.

So really, if a negative is shown I wouldn't need to have a large number of samples. So with the outgoing link test, since it was negative, I only did 3. With the meta tag test I did 10.

The outbound link...does it point at one of the most important pages on that same topic? How does your site and page fit in that portion of the web?

Yes, actually. All the target pages for the links are top 10 in google's results for the same keywords.

Is it even practical / worthwhile / useful to make isolated tests on isolated portions of the web and then assume those results will apply to the well connected pieces of the web?

What other choice is there? Passive observation? I'll borrow something Dan Thies said because he worded it so well.

"The first thing I do when I see a ranking change is pick an arbitrary aspect of the site in question and attribute it to that." (on outgoing links).

Really. You need a controlled environment in order to accurately identify what variable is causing what result. This cannot be done without isolating the testing website, and relying on passive observation instead is leading down a path towards misinterpretation.

For instance if you have a live site, and that site had a ranking change. It could be because of a change you made, or a change someone that links to you made, or a change that someone who links to someone who links to you made. Or a competitor could have risen or dropped, thus pushing you up/down. Or someone who links to a competitor could have done something causing a competitor to rise or drop thus pushing you up/down. etc etc.

So yes, isolating is necessary if you want an accurate result.

IMHO a search engine first

IMHO a search engine first attempts to determine the *context* of any query, and since context is a function of environment, it looks to examine the query in the context of all the information it can. the extent to which that rationale is accepted is the extent to which isolation-style research is useless.

on the topic of SP, WMW, mass exoduses, and forums going corporate, i actually have some sympathy for the corporate folks, as they are in the business of making money (just like many webmasters are), which i see no problem with. IMO though it is foolish for them to go about their efforts in the way they do -- a little transparency and less fear of their own community would go a long way to making everyone happier, and could open up ways to align member interest and corporate interest, thus resulting in wealth for all.

huh

Just to be clear the two or three results were legit and perfectly valid when they proved the point you were trying to make and now that they don't they have instantly become insufficient?

quote from your page

Search Engine Labs

If both link pages are listed above the no-link page then outgoing links help. If only the keyword rich link is listed above then text in anchor tags is simply weighted more than body text but where the link points does not matter. If no page type is always on top of any other then outgoing links do not matter and anchor text is weighted the same as body text. If the no-link pages are on top then anchor text is weighted less than body text.

Just to be clear the two or

Quote:
Just to be clear the two or three results were legit and perfectly valid when they proved the point you were trying to make and now that they don't they have instantly become insufficient?

Yes, but not because I am biased, because it has changed from showing a negative to showing a positive.

If you want to show that outgoing links do not help then a single example of a negative, so long as it is controlled, shows that they do not help.

If you want to show outgoing links do help, then in that case you need to have a statistically significant number of results to make a strong conclusion, and 3 just doesn't cut it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

See the above for more reading on why you need a larger sample size to prove a positive than a negative.

Three Results

So if the three results from your test aren't valid now then your original conclusion based upon those same tests aren't valid either. In simple terms if the three tests don't prove outbound linking helps, those same three tests can't prove outbound linking doesn't help. Which plainly contradicts your statements above:

In the 7 years since I've been focusing on SEO I've seen dozens and dozens of half baked theories that ended up being wrong. Everything from outgoing links helping to over optimization penalties after the Florida update.

and

Either I am absolutely sure of something, and have proof, or I preface it by saying that this is merely what I think, or what I think is the most likely scenario. I never pass off my own personal theories as facts.

Sorry Graywolf. You're just

Sorry Graywolf. You're just not getting it. Showing something is not true is easier than showing something is true. Its a fundamental scientific principle.

If you want to show something is false, you just need one negative result. Do you get that? Assuming there is no human error & your experiment is controlled them you just need one negative.

If you want to show something is true, you need enough positives to be statistically significant. You need to be sure it isn't just coincidence.

In this case the hypothesis was "Outgoing Links Raise the SERP Ranking of the Linking Page".

When I had a negative result, it proved my hypothesis wrong, because there is no "some of the time" in scientific research. It is either all of the time or never.

Now that the results are positive, it doesn't prove my hypothesis right, it only means that in three trials the indication was that the hypothesis was right. You can't prove "all of the time" with 3 results.

You see, because it is only 3 trials, and each trial has a 66% chance of randomly ending on positive, that means that statistically there is a 28.7% chance that all the results will be positive based on nothing more than coincidence. With 8 trials that'd be 3%, with 10 trials It'd be 1.5%.

Okay... here is a great example.

Your friend is flipping a coin, you think it is a double headed coin.

If it lands heads up 3 times can you be absolutely sure it is double headed? No.

If it doesn't land heads up just one time can you be absolutely sure it isn't double headed? Yes.

That is science my friend.

I should probably example the number of trials and then by the next Google update we'll know for sure, or atleast we'll be 98.5% sure.

DO NO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH

>> IncrediBILL thinks I'm too stupid to make money online.

You just stepped over the line putting words in my mouth Chris as I DID NOT say that WHATSOEVER!

What I said, if you could read plain English which appears to be a sticking point, is that I didn't know why anyone would moderate to line someone else's pockets for free if they didn't share the wealth.

I didnt say you were stupid or you didn't know how to make money online, I just called into question anyone's reasoning for being a moderator for a business other than the publicity which you can get a heck of a lot easier just being a contributor.

If any of these words continue to confuse you please feel free to go HERE for clarifcation on any fine points before misquoting what I say next time.

>> Really, the reason I decided to blog for them was for the status

If you're real good you'll get the status all on your own and blogging for someone else gives THEM status too which IMO you're better off just keeping for yourself.

Wrong Point

While I personally have an opinion on if outbound links help or not that is not my point here. My point is you contradicted yourself with the results from your tests on sites you own. You were happy to share your results when they proved the point you wanted to make, now that they don't you are looking for excuses to hide behind. My real problem was in bragging about your infalability in SEO knowledge. Heck I make mistakes all the time, and I learn a lot more from those tests which ended with results I didn't expect.

As a side note I've done the same tests on different domains and ended up with conflicting results. While we often search for true and false results, sometimes Google gives us a maybe. Or to continue with your example sometimes the coin bounces against a wall and lands on it side.

I'm not looking for excuses

I'm not looking for excuses graywolf. I have a background in science, my job right before this one was working in a university genetic engineering lab doing experiments. I have always tackled SEO from a scientific perspective and I adhere to scientific principles in my experiments. If you don't believe what I've told you about positive and negative results, by all means, get a second opinion.

Quote:
My real problem was in bragging about your infalability in SEO knowledge.

I never said that. I don't know everything, I'll admit that right now. What I said was that I always clearly identify what is accepted fact (providing proof when necessary), and what is merely conjecture (even if it is my own conjecture). I could be wrong about things, or I could be right about things but then Google changes and suddenly I'm wrong, or I could be wrong about things and Google changes and then I'm right. I just try to keep the facts (at the time) and the guesses separate.

For instance I'm always countering people who read up on a new patent and then write that Google is doing this or is doing that. Having a patent does not mean immediate, or even eventual, implementation. Patents are relatively cheap and so every worthwhile idea will be patented whether or not they actually use it. I don't say that they're wrong, merely that we cannot assume that that just because Google patents something that they use it.

Quote:
You just stepped over the line putting words in my mouth Chris as I DID NOT say that WHATSOEVER!

Sorry Bill, I guess its the way you said it. You said someone would be stupid to blog for someone else because they could make more money doing it themselves. Then said I learned this lesson the hardway. I took you to mean that you thought I only just learned I could make money with my own sites when SP dumped me.

punishment

I think I should punish myself for breaking one of my getting things done rules, of not becoming involved in (and in this case contributing to) a discussion that turned into a debate. Although it was friday night and pizza delivery guy was running really late ...

Shame on you Brian

Until Sitepoint censors the mention of Chris's name, please don't compare them with WMW.

Wow this got off topic

Wow this got off topic quick.

This isn't about the lack of integrity of Mr Beasley's pseudo-scientific tests, Daniel "Jackass" Brandt or the stupidity of unpaid moderatorship (it was profitable for him, so he was paid, just not by SP).

It's about the dynamics of forum administration. Anybody who knows anything about forum dynamics knows that there would be backlash from firing an unpaid and highly popular forum leader without any sort of community consensus.

I've had my run-ins with Chris, and he can be a jackass, perhaps an even bigger jackass than me, but he's a popular jackass, and a human jackass, and he deserved better from SP.

What they did was chickenshit cowardly wrongness.

Where are the I Support Chris Beasley bumber stickers?

Thats something I never

Thats something I never thought I'd see you say John. ;)

I am drunk, but if I were

I am drunk, but if I were not, I would swear I was after reading John's post.

If you want to show something is false, you just need one negative result.

It is all based on how you frame the question really.

Me too post

Quote:
Anybody who knows anything about forum dynamics knows that there would be backlash from firing an unpaid and highly popular forum leader without any sort of community consensus.

I can't believe this isn't as obvious as the nose on their face to SP's ownership. The fired mod might not have been making money directly from his participation, but SP certainly was.

I recently sold a very busy forum and the #1 concern during the transition was stability of the unpaid moderators. Not even the actual transfer of ownership was as likely to cause issues as the public loss of a moderator or two. In the words of the administrator for the site, 'the forum IS the moderators'.

Off topic, as I really don't

Off topic, as I really don't give much of a shit about SEO arguments, but Aaron - is there a reason why you don't post while you're drunk?

I tend to make some of my best comments on other peoples' blogs while drunk.

On topic, the help and knowledge that Chris lent in SitePoint threads was inspiration for me to get more into web publishing, understand monetization, think somewhat like an entrepreneur and participate more often and in greater form within SitePoint threads. Sounds like you got done wrong at SP Chris, feel free to drop by SEJ anytime.

Mod Labor Union Needed?

Kidding. Back on topic...

I know how hard it is to get good mods. I treat mine like GOLD because I know they are working for FREE to help me build MY community and MY business. The dynamics of running a forum are so interesting. In what other business could you get some of the top minds in the biz to VOLUNTEER to work for free?

So with that said, someone like Chris who is a pro super affiliate, communicates well and gave as much time and commitment to a forum like he did, should not be treated this way. I know I will miss his participation there.

Not sure what happened behind the scenes to cause this to happen, but best of luck to you Chris. Look at all the extra time you will have now to build sites and make even more commissions. ;-)

Tempest meet teapot

If I owned Sitepoint I'd do with it what I thought was best.

If I didn't own Sitepoint I wouldn't stay up late to tell them how to run their business.

Here, here!

Quote:
I know how hard it is to get good mods. I treat mine like GOLD because I know they are working for FREE to help me build MY community and MY business.

Here, here! Hard to imagine running a forum any other way, but I guess if you go corporate it's a whole 'nother ballgame.

When you go corporate, you

When you go corporate, you lose a lot of your initial goals, which often are the cause of your popularity. It just happens that quality takes the backseat and the interest of the corporation comes first. If you have been a mod and are being demoted/taken off whatever, then use that as an opportunity to move forward on your own. I'm sure that Chris will have quite a few followers who will support him.

Mike

"When you go corporate"

"you lose a lot of your initial goals"

SEW, seems to have managed to avoid the problem ?

That's because Danny hasn't

That's because Danny hasn't changed who he is. There are some issues at SEW as well, however the person in charge is taking quality seriously enough to where he won't compromise it.

Mod Treatment

You're right Mike about forums that go corporate, they do tend to lose site of the things that should matter most sometimes. I'm a mod at both SEW and WebProWorld. Both companies have grown to be pretty big corporations or are owned by one. But they both treat mods with respect and make you feel like part of a team, not a dispensable number. I've never been a SP mod, so can't really compare how they treat their mods. But running a forum COMMUNITY is a people business, so forums that lose sight of that and start treating mods as dispensable numbers, I think will lose some ground. We saw it happen recently at SEOC with a massive mod exodus when they got too corporate.

<sidenote type="silly">

Linda, I was ready to marry you there and then but you never got back to me....

sew

Quote:
SEW, seems to have managed to avoid the problem ?

I think that's because the SEW forum doesn't try to specifically make money from the forum. They are smart enough to know that the forum itself doesn't need to be monetized as it adds value to the SEW properties in general. The forums have the ability to get people signed up to their paid newsletters, as well as to come to their paid conference.

WITTY

Oh no, Wit - can't believe I missed that post. Trust me if I'd seen it, I would have replied. ;-)

I don't know Chris Beasley

I don't know Chris Beasley but I remember about 2 years ago someone linked to his article on webmasterworld and it got panned. Then Chris joined the thread to defend his article and the thread ended up looking pretty much like this one.

Nice chap :)

I used to post over at

I used to post over at Sitepoint under the name 'polymath' and I have to say I can't believe they dumped him. It really sucks...sure, he was blunt, but he helped build that place up...that news definitely sucks...keep your chin up, aspen.

Hey, polymath - not seen

Hey, polymath - not seen your Rorshach face for too long. :)

Used to post as "chronicles" before was able to get it changed to "I, Brian".

>sew

it's avoided trouble mostly because it's still small and, well, bland.

SEW

Plus SEW forums were commercial from the get go. Nothing wrong with that, just that there was no community expectation of non-commercialisim.

that's not drunk

Quote:
I tend to make some of my best comments on other peoples' blogs while drunk.

hey, Lorenbaker, that's not drunk. That's just "drinking". Drunk is more like this.

(H)I Brian

Hi, how you doing? Yeah, I remember you working on that Chronicles magnum opus. Still going, eh? And I'd almost forgotten about Google 'update Yorkshire',lol! Hope you're well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.