Re: Provocative discussion of the nature of Coffeegeek

> Each to his own. You like coffeegeek, I like alt.coffee. Sorry if that
> makes me shrill.

I said I like both, though each has its quirks. And I didn't say you're
shrill: I said that some posts here are shrill. You seem intent on
misreading my post.

> I'd rather the healthy discussion that takes place here than being told I
> should buy products from a sponsor or being labelled as "junior" or
> "senior".

I tried to explain the latter classification: it's somewhat equivalent to
Ebay's "number" of feedback. I don't want to buy someone's WegaLyra when he
just signed up yesterday. I'm not saying you ought to like it, but at least
represent it fairly. I personally think there's far more elitism on a.c.
than over there, but I'm not particularly against elitism, as you seem to
be.

> I hope this doesn't descend to the this or that is better - each arena has
> it's benefits,

That's what I said. Did I upset you because I pointed out some of the
quirks of this group? Heck, I only pointed out two. I didn't even mention
the need for every newbie to PID their Silvia or read the Insanely Long
Water FAQ to know what a good brand of spring water is.

> but I prefer the transparancy of this unmoderated place, even with it's
> ups and downs and loony posts - I assume they would be censored on CG.

Then you may assume wrong. I'd be interested to know the facts on this, but
it infer (perhaps incorrectly) that there is very little censoring on CG.
Maybe there's a lot I don't know of. The last thing I saw was Mark telling
a poster to refrain in the future from masquerading as a private seller when
they're commercial. Pretty tame stuff. He didn't even delete their post,
or stop the ad. I've seen a lot of stuff that I'm amazed isn't moderated.
Maybe you all know Mark better than I, but it doesn't look like he steps in
very much.

....

> I see Mark has already chastised those that disagreed with the original
> post. In hindsight, maybe using a very personal message which allured to
> the fact that people should feel guilty for not patronising sponsors
> (which it appears many have but there was no mechanism to record this)
> wasn't the best way of dealing with the problems Mark sees with revenue,
> even if he subsequently clarifies his remarks.

I agree with you here. I'm actually a bad guy over there for criticizing
Jeannette's post as "chastising" and "amateurish" because in real life she's
a swell person, which I don't doubt for a second. But what I was really
calling for was for Mark to take responsibility for approving an editorial
which was full of misplaced recriminations and a plethora of empty rhetoric
of "I don't mean to blame you guys." I see that kind of empty rhetoric in
the papers I grade all the time: it's precisely what the supervisor, or
editor is for: "Uh, you ARE blaming them. Either don't blame them, or
remove the posturing about not blaming them." I just had my second
double-ristretto of the day, so I'm probably too emotional at the moment,
but it almost seems like Mark stuck Jeannette out there defenseless in her
"first article for Coffeegeek." He should have written that piece, period.

>
> Although we've had discussions in the past here about people who post
> about an unsatisfactory dealing with a company before they've necessarily
> tried to sort it out with the vendor direct, Mark is unhappy that the same
> is posted on the forums. Just because someone is a sponsor it doesn't
> mean they are a great company to do business with (even if many are). I
> visited the site for Green mountain coffee roasters that he picked out,
> and to be honest, although they might be a great company, not a lot of
> alt.coffee regulars are likely to do business with them based on their
> front page - Blueberry flavoured coffee and no immediate indication of
> freshness of roast etc, along with the ubiguitous pods etc.

Agreed. As I posted there, it's like coming across an ad for Radio Shack or
Kenwood in Audiophile magazine. If their stuff really competes, they need
to show me, because otherwise Green Mountain is just the stale stuff I see
in the grocery store. Maybe they are not a good fit for coffeegeek, in a
way which isn't coffeegeek's fault.


> CoffeeGeek represents a tremendous effort on the part of Mark and others
> and it's a resource that many use, but it should definitely fess up and
> either be a commercial site (albeit an honest one) or not.

I disagree. I believe there is a very stable middle ground between a
startup commercial website and a charity. After all, Mark himself lists
Coffeegeek.com as his "hobby," not his "work," in his sig file. There are
plenty of nonprofits which pay their employees and balance income with
expenses [I worked at one]: he could at least run coffeegeek as a nonprofit
(where he and others still get paid) even if they are not technically a
nonprofit in the eyes of the IRS.

C


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scoopage - inside look at the Clover, and GS/3 with paddle group
    ... To stay on topic, Mark stated a long time ago what his ethos was with Coffeegeek when it had to become more commercial to stay afloat - until then it had been a huge drain on his time and resources, and whilst we are all entitled to our opinion on the current Coffeegeek, normal social "rules" should dictate what we say online, to be referred back to by many people through Google. ... Google posts by Mark, or "coffeekid" to see threads where he spells out exactly what his responsibilities are to advertisers, reviews etc on Coffeegeek. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Provocative discussion of the nature of Coffeegeek
    ... I hope a.c.-ers don't mind that I'm posting this link here, but though I visit coffeegeek regularly, I sometimes miss things, and this is the most important thing I've seen in some time, and it invites replies. ... They are arguing that coffeegeek is going into the red, perhaps leading to a major rethinking of their nature, because cg'ers aren't patronizing sponsors, and, yes, have even been known to criticize some of them in posts. ... Or the rules and moderated forum. ... I wish Mark and his staff well as they seem to be very dedicated and put in lots of work for free. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Provocative discussion of the nature of Coffeegeek
    ... Sorry if that makes me shrill. ... The discussion here has definitely been watered down by the fact that many use the CG forums instead, which were started directly from the participants of alt.coffee. ... In hindsight, maybe using a very personal message which allured to the fact that people should feel guilty for not patronising sponsors wasn't the best way of dealing with the problems Mark sees with revenue, even if he subsequently clarifies his remarks. ... CoffeeGeek represents a tremendous effort on the part of Mark and others and it's a resource that many use, but it should definitely fess up and either be a commercial site or not. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Anyone Have a Kitchen Aid Proline Burr Grinder?
    ... Mark Prince's coffeegeek ... I'll post my findings. ... right about this grinder it deserves a second look by the whole coffee ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Provocative discussion of the nature of Coffeegeek
    ... > Cordovero wrote: ... You like coffeegeek, I like alt.coffee. ... >> shrill: I said that some posts here are shrill. ...
    (alt.coffee)