Would MUCH prefer to pay for the service!

A place for polls.

Would you prefer to pay for the service if it meant greatly increase reliability?

Yes, would pay up to $40 / yr
6
10%
Yes, would pay up to $30 / yr
2
3%
Yes, would pay up to $20 / yr
15
25%
Yes, would pay up to $10 / yr
15
25%
I wouldn't pay
23
38%
 
Total votes : 61

Financial Status of Spamgourmet

Postby mysticturner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:08 pm

I've posted what I'm about to say once before & never got an answer - What is the financial status? Who Knows? My point is that in this thread is the first time I've seen someone put out a $ figure (we're now running in the red). This info needs to be communicated to the user community. I sincerely believe that people are generous (except spammers who are born of pure evil - I wonder if in the new release of 'The Omen', Damien grows up to be a spammer?). If a need is known and quantified, people respond. My suggestion is that on the advanced page, we put a simple little indicator that shows the monthly financial status - Red if we're loosing money, green if we're OK & building toward purchasing the next bigger, more reliable server, yellow if we're just hanging in there. Users don't need to know that we've only got $50 in the kitty or whatever. Inform users of financial need and people will respond with donations.
mysticturner
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:38 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby SysKoll » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:23 pm

This one is for Josh -- I just donate time and bits of code.
-- SysKoll
SysKoll
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:24 pm

Postby tcgraham » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:27 am

I have used SG for several years. I would dearly miss it if it ever stopped. Josh and crew are truly dedicated to the site.
Now someone brings up the subject of making it a fee based site with all kinds of ideas on formulas for determining a price. Hey Folks, lets forget this whole fee based discussion. The next thing I will hear is somone suggesting that an IPO would be a great idea and then hire a gung ho but inept CEO to run the whole show, etc, etc. There is always someone wanting to mess with a product, ala "the new Coca Cola". Lets leave a perfect product aone. If Josh ever feels a need for money to run the site, there will be plenty of us users who will step up and contribute. Until then lets just just enjoy the product the SG team has given us.
tcgraham
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:51 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Prognathous » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:08 am

I'll gladly pay $10~$20 a year for a more reliable version of SG. Until then, it's as good a time as ever to donate, so I just did :)

Prog.
Prognathous
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:44 pm

Postby SysKoll » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:52 pm

To clarify, the current sg sever runs out of Josh's pocket, with some ads to help pay for the hosting, and some donations from kind users. It will remain free.

What is proposed is creating a new, independent site, with new domains, that will offer a for-pay service similar to sg. It will have with commercial support, quality of service and a higher bandwidth. It will not replace sg, it will complement it. Neither Josh nor me will get a red penny from that new service, and I'd even volunteer some help to get it started.
-- SysKoll
SysKoll
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:24 pm

Postby some_yahoo » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:44 pm

I checked the "no" option, but that said, I think I can say I would happily cough up a donation once in a while at random.

So just because I checked NO in no way means I think the service is "worthless".

In fact - with this recent outage, I am more convinced of it's value than ever.

What I would absolutely LOVE is for SG to keep a list of heavy spam sources and make it available as a blacklist, a la Spamcop so we can set our email servers to look in there and decide if the inbound email is crap or not.
some_yahoo
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:28 pm

Postby kerflot » Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:14 am

some_yahoo wrote:I checked the "no" option, but that said, I think I can say I would happily cough up a donation once in a while at random.

So just because I checked NO in no way means I think the service is "worthless".


Same here I've already decided to donate US$5 a year while I'm using it but I'd be prepared to go US$10 a year especially if reliability was guaranteed.

Recent outage was a worry for me as I had an address that was about to expire and wanted to increase the forwarding number.
kerflot
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:02 am

Re: Would MUCH prefer to pay for the service!

Postby gourmet_333 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:06 am

those who don't mind having their identity busted can of course donate.

paid services are never anon. that is the big problem.
gourmet_333
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Would MUCH prefer to pay for the service!

Postby Zero » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:32 am

I wouldn't pay for the service as subscription to it, but I would donate something (according to what I can afford) if it was required.
Zero
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:38 pm

donate

Postby gourmet_333 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:11 am

Zero wrote: I would donate something if it was required.
:roll:

What is a "required donation" ? sounds oxymoronic to me. :?:
gourmet_333
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:02 pm

Previous

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest