Seedfork said:
Really? Really? That is all I can say, I guess as a "product"...someone is actually thinking about us.
I can't believe people who come to this site for free, and benefit so much from it are so fast to jump ship. I just can't imagine the hurt such a post would cause someone who has spent so much time and trouble trying to make this a great garding site, and as far as I can see is only going to make it better. 
I think you missed the point of my post. It really wasn't about the banner at all. It was about what the banner might portend.
I've been on the "internet" since before it was the internet (bbs days). And the pattern of building a community and then monetizing the community is older than even that. It's almost a "law of physics" of the internet. It's what happens. And the steps to it are both real and recognizable (if you've seen it before). Think of me as the canary in the coal mine, maybe.
And I realize that this site and what it provides is a HUGE investment for Dave and Trish...both timewise, moneywise, and heart-and-soul-wise. And don't think me ungrateful for that. I actually get it. And I know that they need to recoup that investment in more than just hugs. Those don't put food on the table.
The flipside of this is that we, the community, have also invested in this. The thousands of thousands of pics, articles, independent research, etc., that have been freely given under the banner of crowdsourcing really do have value. And really could be leveraged/monetized in a variety of ways.
I don't know that it's wrong to point that out and wonder. Crowd-sourcing is a two way street. With implicit understandings that go both ways. One of those understandings is that those providing the content can speak up about direction and disposition of the crowd-sourced stuff. And it's not a bad conversation to have out loud (at least in my opinion).
I'd be thrilled if what I see as the beginning of a pattern that I've seen multiple times isn't playing out here. I love this place. And it's provided value to us that we haven't returned in a way that does put food on the table. And I completely get that. And I also get that none of this is up to me.
I'm not "jumping ship". And I have high hopes for the changes and the broader scope/audience. I'm not sure if I'm seeing the beginnings of a hard push to move the participants (and their contributions) from consumers to products. But it's something that has happened, happens, and will happen again and again on the internet. And if you read hurt in my intent, Larry, you really missed the point. It's really a pretty reasonable conversation to be had because it affects us all. Knowing the size and shape and intentions and directions of a place that we all sink so much time into is important. It's a bi-directional thing and it's about making informed choices on both sides.
Dave and Trish, I'm sure, are aware that the changes they make will affect the community in a variety of ways. And they weigh the pros and cons of these changes. And to do it in a vacuum, without input from the crowd, isn't a good play. And part of why they're not nuking lively discussions across the board. They've got a vision of what this place should be and what it should look like and what they want to get out of it (in currencies ranging from hugs to making a living). And they weigh all of those things carefully, I'm sure. And ultimately it's up to them. I really hope I haven't caused hurt by this post. This might not be, arguably, the best venue for it. But it's legitimate stuff to talk about and think about from all corners.
I can see from the responses generated while I was typing this up that my thrust is either misunderstood or just outright wrong. I'm okay with that. But nothing I've communicated or am thinking about along these lines is without broad precedent. And if I've offended any of you posting, I apologize. This place is important to me. If it weren't, I wouldn't be out on the thin branches saying what I am. And spinning out possibilities like I have.
----------------------------------
Sidenote: direct, community funding and value-for-value and the notion of "volunteerism" really seem to be taking off. Dunno if you've ever considered it, but I know we'd respond well and generously to a straight-up appeal that went something like this:
We work our tails off to provide the neat thing that is ATP (garden.org). And we need to be able to make at least part of our living at it. We don't want to make this a subscription-based site and we don't want to leverage our contributers as products. Could you please return some monetary value in exchange for the entertainment, community, and information that we provide?
Your site. Your rules. Your direction. Your vision. I understand that.
