On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, jamesmichaelnewton
<
jamesmichaelnewton@...> wrote:
> Specifically, what topics are not well named?
One example, Holes.
If you click the "holes" or "drill holes" you get the same scattered
comments about installing copper tubes as vias. That's not what I
understand as holes, or drilling holes, that's homebrew methods for
plating holes maybe. There isn't a bit of information about actually
making the holes.
> First off, they ARE a different style. The color, I agree, is the same. If you make them a different color, people don't look at them.
>
> Does it occur to you that the ads might have value? That people advertise things that relate?
>
Does it occur to you that I might not be interested to actually read
the ads, or at least I might want to know I am reading a commercial ad
instead of the page content? The ones to the right are fine, but for
example the line inserted on top looks just the same as your links.
Maybe you should check your own copyright notice: "©2010 These pages
are served without commercial sponsorship".
Tricking people into clicking on ads is not commercial sponsorship?
You aren't interested to accept any criticism as maybe having a valid
point, but you want others to contribute to a flawed base.
This isn't something new, I had exactly the same thought when you
added the inkjet content years ago. I kept quiet and hoped the site
would improve, or maybe it was just me that didn't understand it, but
it didn't, and it isn't just me.
Anyway, now you know why I, and probably a few others, don't want to
actively contribute to your site. You've actually given me money to
host some stuff about inkjet printing, but you could have way more,
and all for free, if the environment was just a little more inviting.
Just look at the archive of this yahoo group too see how much people
will give.
ST