Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:44:36 -0400
in article ZaGdndeOzpnwHcDeRVn-sA@xxxxxxxxxxxx, stephaneb at
usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/24/2005 20:46:
>> so why not just strip off the text right now, Stephane? why delay? i
>> imagine it's just like editing a sig file.
>
> Because the ad serves a purpose of course, which is to promote the site. I
> understand that your position is that the ad is not helping but rather
> hindering DSPRelated. If I get the same feedback from a few other
> regulars here and sense that overall, the sig is a negative thing for
> DSPRelated.com, then I'll probably move on and strip it.
well you already have Mark saying
in article 1130209849.556548.238880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark at
makolber@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/24/2005 23:10:
>
> OK I agree, I don't see the point of using DSPrelated when you can use
> Google.
>
> Mark
>
the persons first hindered are those who are using DSPrelated as a gateway
to comp.dsp. i think it's fine that you provide such a gateway. i really
don't care. they could use Google Groups as far as i care (and i have when
i had posted from a remote computer). fine. big deal.
but the people first being hindered are those who *do* use DSPrelated.com to
post to comp.dsp, if their post has to carry the baggage of the ad. right
away, they are pegged as AOLdotCOMmers and that is *not* helpful to them.
if they post a real annoyance, you don't want that associated with
DSPrelated.com because, i can tell you for sure that if they post a
brilliantly worded and interesting post from DSPrelated, that you will not
be so credited. that association will stick only to the dogs, in our
memories, not to the good posts. then, using Bayes rule, if the likelihood
that a dog is with "DSPrelated.com", we will start thinking that
"DSPrelated.com" is a likely dog. then the guys using DSPrelated to post a
more legit post are harmed, they will (and should) start using Google or a
regular newsserver, and that is when DSPrelated is harmed.
you know, people *using* your service should expect to pay for it by having
to endure ads. but i am not using your service and i do not want to be
exposed to such an ad, just because i feel generous and might want to
respond to a poster that may or may not be from DSPrelated. you are forcing
me to see your ad (which is eye trash) and i am not deriving any benefit
from it. that will hurt your clients because i might start blaming them
(for using DSPrelated to post).
please lose it.
better late than never, but better sooner than later.
--
r b-j rbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: stephaneb
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- References:
- How to compensate for the passband droop of a Sinc filter with an IIR filter?
- From: daniel zuo
- Re: How to compensate for the passband droop of a Sinc filter with an IIR filter?
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: Martin Eisenberg
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: Martin Eisenberg
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: stephaneb
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- From: stephaneb
- How to compensate for the passband droop of a Sinc filter with an IIR filter?
- Prev by Date: Re: Taps
- Next by Date: Re: Selling a design
- Previous by thread: Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- Next by thread: Re: [not so OT] DSPRelated.com
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|