Gotcha Flippa! You've closed another thread

[3Six]

It's not just me, they won't take your article either Clinton

There's an agenda there, mate, and anyone who isn't promoting that scammy agenda isn't welcome. Like your sticky thread in the How to Buy and Sell a Website forum at Sitepoint. It was a very hot thread, had input from several people and even had some excellent disclosures on escrow. As of yesterday they've deleted it and replaced it with one written by Luke (that isn't a sticky yet, but if it gets a few replies they'll sticky it ).

All gullible idiots can get car buying advice directly from the car salesman. Cool!

[benitez17]

I had started to work on an outline for an overview of what site buyers like to see when evaluating a site since Dave sounded very interested in posting that information on the Flippa blog, but all I would be doing is regurgitating the information in posts from Clinton, Edman, and others in the demoted thread pointed out above. If Sitepoint/Flippa can't be bothered to take advantage of information that has already been provided to them (and is actively burying it), then why should anyone take the time to contribute anything to them?

By the way, did anyone else ever notice that it looks like dklynn butchered point #8 in Clinton's post at the start of the thread? It reads:

"8. Do NOT {SitePoint Guideline #4} use a tinyURL kind of service for your main domain instead of listing the domain in the auction. Some buyers could be dissuaded from bidding because of the perceived negative SEO, DMOZ or brand value associated with a public announcement of sale. Similarly, don't change WHOIS once your auction has started - leave that to the winning bidder to do on completion of sale. Don't make any major site changes in the interim either or you'll spook some buyers."

That doesn't make any sense to me, and I assume that dklynn's edit of the post was to insert the link to that rule and add the "NOT". Somehow, in all of the times I read that thread, I never noticed that before.

[Clinton]

benitez17 and 3Six, I don't really care whether they use my material or not or what they do with it. Bear in mind that Luke offered me a bite at that cherry long before the Ed Dales et al. I declined as I didn't want to write a sycophantic post. In fact, I had a chance to cooperate with "the Flippa project" long before even Luke joined and I turned Matt (one of Flippa's owners) down as well. I'm not willing to con people to get some free publicity. Hasn't ever been my style.

benetiz17, I would be delighted if you drew up something for this forum. Even if there's some overlap with materal I've written it would be a useful addition, other members here would like to read it and, very importantly, the hundreds of guests who come to this forum everyday would find it useful to compare against some of the wildly promotional material elsewhere.

[HAWK]

It's not just me, they won't take your article either Clinton

There's an agenda there, mate, and anyone who isn't promoting that scammy agenda isn't welcome. Like your sticky thread in the How to Buy and Sell a Website forum at Sitepoint. It was a very hot thread, had input from several people and even had some excellent disclosures on escrow. As of yesterday they've deleted it and replaced it with one written by Luke (that isn't a sticky yet, but if it gets a few replies they'll sticky it ).

This is becoming a bit of a conspiracy theory guys! I un-stuck that thread (it hasn't been deleted) as part of my push to clean up the sticky threads. I felt that it was no longer relevant as a sticky because you can't buy or sell sites through SitePoint, which is what the thread directly related too. Perhaps I was hasty - if you really believe that to be the case then by all means speak up - I'm happy for Clinton to edit his thread so that it is wholly relevant and I'll re-stick it.

My agenda is to have as much useful, relevant information as possible. I am not driven by the bottom line and have never received any instruction with regard to what information I highlight. It was actually my idea for Luke to write a new and up to date thread. Again, no agenda. My intention is definitely to stick the thread but I'm not waiting for responses, I'm simply waiting for Luke to give me the go-ahead because he's finished writing/editing/updating.

You guys are a wealthy resource of information and I appreciate that you are willing to share that over at SP. I don't want there to be any ill feeling and I certainly don't want you to feel that I don't value your knowledge. I invite any of you to write threads and if I'll stick them if they are appropriate.

[benitez17]

This is becoming a bit of a conspiracy theory guys! I un-stuck that thread (it hasn't been deleted) as part of my push to clean up the sticky threads. It was no longer relevant as a sticky because you can't buy or sell sites through SitePoint, which is what the thread directly related too. My agenda is to have as much useful, relevant information as possible. I am not driven by the bottom line and have never received any instruction with regard to what information I highlight. It was actually my idea for Luke to write a new and up to date thread. Again, no agenda. My intention is definitely to stick the thread but I'm not waiting for responses, I'm simply waiting for Luke to give me the go-ahead because he's finished writing/editing/updating.

I invite any of you to write threads and if I'll stick them if they are appropriate.

Thanks for the clarification. I think it would have been better to just replace Sitepoint with Flippa in that thread and let the excellent information from a number of experienced buyers and sellers remain within easy reach, because the information Luke has provided in the past has not been that great, and his new thread is a large step down from the former sticky post that no one will find now. I would be willing to bet that several of the posters in the now-buried thread have done more business buying and selling websites so far this year than Luke has done in his life, plus some people have an issue with a Flippa staff member attempting to advise people on how to buy and sell a website on Flippa. Also, closing one of the most useful threads on Sitepoint when the admins there are attempting to increase the quality of the contributions there doesn't make much sense to me. How does the community benefit from that post being buried? Are people like Clinton, Edman, 3Six, and others supposed to re-post all of that information in Luke's thread?

If you take a look at the actions of Sitepoint and Flippa over the last year, you'll see why so many people here are immediately suspicious of any change made where quality information is removed or effectively hidden from view and replaced with promotional material for their business that was written by a marketing person, not experts in the field. Matt, Mark, and Dave were openly hostile and rude to anyone who didn't think that raising fees by up to 1000% while providing no improvements in service and launching a bug-ridden product was good for customers when they launched Flippa. Since then, SP/Flippa has been deleting posts, closing threads, and continuing to focus on the promotion of a flawed business model that requires a constant stream of new customers over quality information and useful services.

I hope that you realize how much animosity exists towards Sitepoint from former frequent contributors, and how much work you will have to do to bring them back so Sitepoint doesn't continue to be an echo chamber of spam posts and incorrect/misleading information. There are a number of technical forums that provide more help than Sitepoint with coding issues, there are other forums with more helpful marketing information, and now there is this forum to discuss the business of owning websites so Sitepoint's forum on that topic is basically dead. I think it still has some useful information about overall design and things like css, but I don't think that's not enough to carry a forum of that size. Until Sitepoint is known as the place to go for quality information on the specific topics that it has forums to discuss, Sitepoint is going to struggle.

[HAWK]

I am starting to pick up on that animosity

Thanks for your advice regarding the old thread. What you say makes sense. I will revisit it and make edits where appropriate (ie regarding references to the MP).

[Clinton]

You said here

I'm happy for Clinton to edit his thread so that it is wholly relevant and I'll re-stick it.

And you said there:

Edit: I've rethought that. Rather than having two stickies I'll add a clear reference to it at the top of this thread.

If you keep the conversation in one place, HAWK, it'll prevent people here thinking you're doing one thing when you're doing something else altogether. When you don't like a "conspiracy theory" that's brewing, the last thing you want to do is stoke the fire.

I un-stuck that thread (it hasn't been deleted) as part of my push to clean up the sticky threads. I felt that it was no longer relevant as a sticky

I don't believe we claimed it was deleted like other threads on SP. But it was a good as. You would have known that removing a closed thread as a sticky would consign it to burial. Or was that something you didn't realise at the time?

My agenda is to have as much useful, relevant information as possible. I am not driven by the bottom line...

But the people who pay your salary are, and they can over-ride decisions you take (as you've pointed out to me). I bear in mind they have form in deleting threads they see as affecting the bottom line.

I'm happy for Clinton to edit his thread so that it is wholly relevant and I'll re-stick it.

That's very kind, thank you, but seeing that you've now changed your mind about resticking it, what's the point in me editing a closed thread on page 54?

I'll make you a counter offer - we'll create a thread here in a neutral environment, a thread that can't get deleted or meddled with. We'll ensure it's the dog's bananas. And you can link to that in the Luke sticky. Perhaps you could add an honest disclosure in the sticky - for newbies to the whole industry - that the writer of the sticky works for the main marketplace and has a vested interest. Or is that too much of honesty for Sitepoint?

I'll continue to post at SP - I'm not on some kind of mission to boycott Sitepoint - but I'm reluctant to put a lot of effort into a post when I know that there's nothing you or I can do if it's considered detrimental to Flippa's sales and ends up binned, buried or modified with bullsh*t.

Luke doesn't seem to be in SP out of interest in buying and selling sites, he isn't there because he wants to discuss issues related to buying and selling, he isn't a "one of us" (though initially we gave him the benefit of the doubt). It looks like he's in SP for one reason: to promote Flippa. Nothing wrong with that but I have an uncomfortable feeling about allowing him to advise newbies. See the games he plays* to try to pass off ads as genuine information. On these boards that's considered spam.

(*I've saved a copy of that thread in case it "disappears")

[benitez17]

I am starting to pick up on that animosity

Thanks for your advice regarding the old thread. What you say makes sense. I will revisit it and make edits where appropriate (ie regarding references to the MP).

Glad to hear it. I hope you will be allowed to clean up that forum and enact some rules that will improve the quality of discussion there, but I am not optimistic. I'll make some more comments in the other thread about your work at SP.

[tke71709]

This is becoming a bit of a conspiracy theory guys! I un-stuck that thread (it hasn't been deleted) as part of my push to clean up the sticky threads.

Yet an SEO thread from 2002 (last updated in 2005) remains a sticky full of links to articles that were outdated 5 years ago...

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53874

Thank god, now I know how to submit a site to Lycos and Altavista.

Let's examine that post shall we?
The Search Engine Marketing Kit by SitePoint - working link to SP product
Search Engine Submission Pages - useless
Directory Submission Pages - limited value, 3 404 pages, FYI Zeal no longer exists as of 2006
Other Resources - 12 links, 8 are 404s and the other 4 are so outdated as to make me giggle.

[3Six]

HAWK, you had the chance to build some credibility here with us. Speaking for myself, you blew it.

If you wanted to replace one well established thread with another you should have been up front about it. Doing it piecemeal in the hope that nobody would notice wasn't the best way of approaching this.

Step 1: Close the old info thread so nobody can post in it and the last posted date can age a bit (so when you unsticky it, the thread will disappear into oblivion)
Step 2: Create a new thread to replace that one and pretend it's just another thread. Wait for the old thread to age
Step 3: Unsticky the original info thread so now it will be listed based on age of last post i.e. somewhere nobody will see it
Step 4: Make the new thread a sticky

Now that SP (if not you personallly) have been caught out, you made some bleatings about what you'll do to appease anyone annoyed about the game you're playing - something about creating a link to that old thread in the new one. And you don't even carry that out! I don't know what you're playing but the game smells of fish.

Your words say one thing, your actions say something else. Sure, you'll go create a link now, but that's not really the same thing.

You interested in quality information? We'll create the thread here like Clinton says. That way we know that
a) it's worth making considered posts, they won't get deleted or messed with
b) there'll be no promotion or conning of newbies
c) there'll be no fluff or spam (because, let's face it, you've lost that battle, SP is just as fluffy now)

Go ahead and start the thread, ask the questions you want answered, we'll make it a killer thread for you and you can link to it from SP.