Digital BW, The Print

Attached please find an e-mail message I sent to my own EPSON user group 
earlier this evening..  The user community needs to stick together on 
these issues, elsewise YAHOO! will divide the groups and marginalize the 
groups they consider truculent..

 
[Keith]
 
 


  ----------

>From - Fri Apr 05 01:00:02 2002
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <3CAD3D5E.5050802@p-o-v-image.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:59:58 -0500

From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
Reply-To: editor@...
Organization: Persistence of Vision Image Service
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1
X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,en-GB,it,de-DE,de,de-CH8z�`

MIME-Version: 1.0
To: EPSONx7x_Printers@yahoogroups.com, press@...,
	inquiries@truste.org
CC: support@..., support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Formal Shot across Yahoo!'s Bow.. -- they may be violating their posted privacy policy
References: <MBBBIOJMLEFJIBODCBLHMEKODHAA.laurie@...>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060005000007060901030302"


--------------060005000007060901030302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Laurie Solomon wrote:

>They
>just deliberately thought they could sneak their decisions and action by the
>subscribers, hoping theta they would not notice until it was too late.
>
Well, I've heard from moderators of OTHER Yahoo! groups... It seems that 
when they checked, YAHOO! had altered the settings for availability of 
their membership lists as well, so that any member could read the 
addresses of all the members and harvest the list.,..


If we didn't have 1700 subscribers on this list, how long would it have 
taken us to find out?

And how much $$ do you want to bet that YAHOO!'s big $$ advertisers knew 
in advance that YAHOO! was changing those settings?  If that IS the 
case, there certainly may be a case for a class action suit...

They may, in fact, be violating their own privacy policy..

http://rd.yahoo.com/M=224039.1975712.3458972.1912435/D=cb/P=m1u06r3b11iv0a00/S=1705000001:FOOT/A=1028594/R=0/*http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/

If you feel they may, might I suggest filing a complaint at:
http://www.truste.org/users/users_watchdog.html


There are some very specific rules covering what website operators can 
do with personal info (and the OE ones are MUCH more stringent)..

1)  I'm cc'ing Yahoo on this e-mail openly...

2)   I'm putting YAHOO on notice that they altered terms of service in 
such a way as to violate my personal privacy and the security of my 
personal information,, without my personal knowledge of, nor approval of 
said changes.

3)    I will charge YAHOO! for each and every piece of SPAM I trace to 
one of their client/partner-advertisers.  Even if I lose a US court case 
on this the publicity will hurt! and someone like Kennedy in the EU can 
really make them squirm..

4)    I'm forwarding this to several associates in the Computer press, 
as well as to TRUST-e, with an explanatory note explaining:

a)    the changes in individual user marketing preference settings that 
have WITHOUT notice re-initialized users' preferences to allowed 
unsolicited mailings to them.

b)    the changes to group settings by YAHOO which will allow harvesting 
of e-mail addresses from their groups:

contrast that with their public statement at:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/members/members-03.html


c)    the apparent changes regarding user tracking..

"  Evidently Yahoo can track where you go on the internet and report it
to their "partners".  In order to prevent them from keeping tabs on
you, you'll need to click on the Opt-Out link on your Yahoo Privacy
Page.

US: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html
UK: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/uk/pixels/details.html

Find the "Outside the Yahoo! Network" section and read it.  YOU WILL
NEED TO CLICK THE "CLICK HERE" LINK TO OPT OUT. This will have to be
done from each computer and browser that you use. "


5)    I will ask those of you with time to do forward this to Computer 
Industry press people and YAHOO!  along with a quick personal note of 
complaint as well...

Let's see how YAHOO likes the light of day being shined upon their 
little game...

[Keith]
 
 



--------------060005000007060901030302
Content-Type: multipart/related;
 boundary="------------000002050606010107030605"


--------------000002050606010107030605
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Laurie Solomon wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MBBBIOJMLEFJIBODCBLHMEKODHAA.laurie@...">
  <pre wrap="">They<br>just deliberately thought they could sneak their decisions and action by the<br>subscribers, hoping�theta they would not notice until it was too late.<br><br></pre>
  </blockquote>
  <div class="moz-signature">Well, I've heard from moderators of OTHER Yahoo!
groups... It seems that when they checked, YAHOO! had altered the settings
for availability of their membership lists as well, so that any member could
read the addresses of all the members and harvest the list.,..<br>
  <br>
  <br>
If we didn't have 1700 subscribers on this list, how long would it have taken
us to find out?<br>
  <br>
And how much $$ do you want to bet that YAHOO!'s big $$ advertisers knew
in advance that YAHOO! was changing those settings? �If that IS the case,
there certainly may be a case for a class action suit...<br>
  <br>
They may, in fact, be violating their own privacy policy..<br>
  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=224039.1975712.3458972.1912435/D=cb/P=m1u06r3b11iv0a00/S=1705000001:FOOT/A=1028594/R=0/*http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/">http://rd.yahoo.com/M=224039.1975712.3458972.1912435/D=cb/P=m1u06r3b11iv0a00/S=1705000001:FOOT/A=1028594/R=0/*http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/</a><br>
  <br>
If you feel they may, might I suggest filing a complaint at:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.truste.org/users/users_watchdog.html">http://www.truste.org/users/users_watchdog.html</a><br>
  <br>
  <br>
There are some very specific rules covering what website operators can do
with personal info (and the OE ones are MUCH more stringent)..<br>
  <br>
1) �I'm cc'ing Yahoo on this e-mail openly...<br>
  <br>
2)�� I'm putting YAHOO on notice that they altered terms of service in such
a way as to violate my personal privacy and the security of my personal information,,
without my personal knowledge of, nor approval of said changes.<br>
  <br>
3)��� I will charge YAHOO! for each and every piece of SPAM I trace to one
of their client/partner-advertisers. �Even if I lose a US court case on this
the publicity will hurt! and someone like Kennedy in the EU can really make
them squirm.. <br>
  <br>
4)��� I'm forwarding this to several associates in the Computer press, as
well as to TRUST-e, with an explanatory note explaining:<br>
  <br>
a)��� the changes in individual user marketing preference settings that have
WITHOUT notice re-initialized users' preferences to allowed unsolicited mailings
to them.<br>
  <br>
b)��� the changes to group settings by YAHOO which will allow harvesting
of e-mail addresses from their groups:<br>
  <br>
contrast that with their public statement at:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/members/members-03.html">http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/members/members-03.html</a><br>
  <br>
  <br>
c)��� the apparent changes regarding user tracking..<br>
  <br>
"<tt>�<tt> Evidently Yahoo can track where you go on the internet and report
it <br>
 to their "partners".� In order to prevent them from keeping tabs on <br>
 you, you'll need to click on the Opt-Out link on your Yahoo Privacy <br>
 Page.<br>
  <br>
 US: <a href="http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html">http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html</a>
  <br>
 UK: <a href="http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/uk/pixels/details.html">http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/uk/pixels/details.html</a>
  <br>
  <br>
 Find the "Outside the Yahoo! Network" section and read it.� YOU WILL <br>
 NEED TO CLICK THE "CLICK HERE" LINK TO OPT OUT. This will have to be <br>
 done from each computer and browser that you use. "</tt><br>
  </tt><tt> </tt><br>
  <br>
5)��� I will ask those of you with time to do forward this to Computer Industry
press people and YAHOO! �along with a quick personal note of complaint as
well...<br>
  <br>
Let's see how YAHOO likes the light of day being shined upon their little
game...<br>
  <br>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
  <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) [Netscape]">
  <meta name="Author" content="Editor  - P.O.V. Image Service">
  <title>Untitled</title>
  <img src="http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/newkeith4.gif" alt="Keith" nosave="" height="285" width="97">
  <br>
� <br>
� </div>
  <br>
  </body>
  </html>

--------------000002050606010107030605--

--------------060005000007060901030302--




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bear with me here, I'm trying to get a few things clear in my mind. 
(The following applies to ANY group, not just this one, and not 
directed at any individual.)

1.  Yahoo has a history of tromping all over their user's/member's privacy.
2. Yahoo is presently providing these groups as a FREE service.
3. Yahoo's true primary business is the collection of email addresses 
and the resale of address lists.

First, I agree that Yahoo has done a whole bunch of underhanded 
things lately. I'm sure there are more to come.  But then, they do 
have a history, so why is it such a surprise?

So,  all these group members are going to send petitions, write 
letters, mail rotten tomatoes, whatever in order to force Yahoo to 
continue to provide a free service yet not allow them to use your 
information as a means of generating income.  Also opposed is the 
concept of actually paying for group membership.

Maybe the fundamental question might be:  Is the information provided 
by this group worth enough to me that I would pay some fee to receive 
it?  Is it worth $1.00/month?  Is it worth $12.00/year?(Same money 
but it sounds worse) Is it worth $20.00/year?  What would the list 
membership be if members were required to pay ANYTHING to receive it?

Is the information on this or any other group worth more than what is 
presently being paid?
If so, there are lots of options and all of them are more or less 
spam-free and ad-free.
If not, live with it as you are getting what you paid for.

Robbe Gibson
www.robbepp.com



>Attached please find an e-mail message I sent to my own EPSON user group
>earlier this evening..  The user community needs to stick together on
>these issues, elsewise YAHOO! will divide the groups and marginalize the
>groups they consider truculent..
>
>
>[Keith]

---SNIP(you can read it in another post)

All the best,

Robbe

Robbe Gibson wrote:

>
> Maybe the fundamental question might be:  Is the information provided
> by this group worth enough to me that I would pay some fee to receive
> it?  Is it worth $1.00/month?  Is it worth $12.00/year?(Same money
> but it sounds worse) Is it worth $20.00/year?  What would the list
> membership be if members were required to pay ANYTHING to receive it?

To some extent, I agree with you.. certainly, the service must be "paid 
for somehow"  A few points though...

1)  Yahoo! has been showing a profit..

2)    They are apparently seeking to maximize the bottom-line, 
apparently to strengthen themselves for the next round of buyouts and 
mergers.. not to provide better services or better the company

3)    No-one forced YAHOO! to purchase e-groups, as an example..

The problem, as I see it today,  is as follows...

Yahoo got told in no uncertain terms by listmembers
that they would NOT  pay for the privilege of being spammed... Yahoo is 
not simply interested in making a profit, they are interested in
short-term profit, and maximizing markup.. Elsewise, they might have
offered a paid (advertising free) membership to list members, as well as 
an advertising supported one.. Instead, they proved their own greed (or 
stupidity in being unwilling too truly chance altering the paradigm)  in 
wanting BOTH the advertising and the fees..  They boxed themselves in 
like an attorney who goes only for murder one, when manslaughter might 
 be an available charge, only to find the jury acquitting the
defendant.,..  That kind of idiocy cost Napoleon Moscow too..

No-one begrudges them revenue, but do you think they might even TRY to 
coordinate advertising with list content?

Wouldn't ads from EPSON, MediaStreet, TSS, Lyson, Luminos, Canon, etc. 
get more clickthroughs on this list than do the random ads we get now?

Instead, we get adds for X10 wireless cameras, credit repair,
scholarships, cd's, whatever...  They have naturally targeted lists and
yet they use birdshot from a blunderbuss to target their advertising..
 Talk about "not a clue!"

The fact is, they want a quick and easy, no-effort way to make an
assured revenue stream.. That doesn't exist in any business.. It existed 
for a brief time in the dot-com lands, but not today...  

If they don't tailor their ENTIRE model to the real world, it won't 
work.. Right now they are only apparently focused upon the short-term 
cash-flow without doing the obvious things I mentioned about advertising 
etc.. You don't advertise Geritol on the Cartoon channel or Nick at 
Night... they seem to be at a loss when it comes to learning some of the 
basic lessons traditional media have known for years..

>
> Is the information on this or any other group worth more than what is
> presently being paid?
> If so, there are lots of options and all of them are more or less
> spam-free and ad-free.

Such as?

Which of those options preserves the current  group oriented format, 
prevents spam abuse and culling of names, and has the same real-time 
response cycle. And there is no guarantee that any hosted service will 
remain ad/spam free.  Clearly YAHOO is trying to redefine the paradigm 
unilaterally... If they succeed unimpeded, others will follow suit..

>
> If not, live with it as you are getting what you paid for.
>
>
But that is inaccurate... We have all already paid for past service by 
enduring the advertising becoming more and more intrusive, e-mail spam, 
etc.. Anbd that would be a FAIR choice if people knew about the changes 
to their user and group preferences..  It's not at all fair when YAHOO! 
makes those changes in a covert and underhanded manner.

The issue is, like any in marketing,  what cost is the market willing to 
bear?

Complaints, etc.. tell the marketers where the boundaries are and how to 
take that into account when looking at cost/profit ratios.. One doesn't 
simply "vote with one's feet and leave"  as Harry Truman said.  There is 
feedback in the process other than simple numbers..

Basically waht we have here is a sultural clash..

Those who think that information when given by the compiler/expert for 
free should remain so (the old net paradigm) vs. a new paradigm in which 
everything one puts out can be resold by someone else..

Not just the group info, but look at YAHOO! adding the option to allow 
ppl to buy prints made from files in the photo section... Did they set 
that up so that only owners of the images could initally do so, unless 
settings were changed by said owner... Nope..

As for bandwidth costs, there is a current substantial glut of 
bandwidth.  The problem is that many, perhaps including YAHOO, invested 
in bandwidth at pre-recession prices and now are stuck paying off those 
capital expenditure over-investments in leaner times (and times in whch 
the bandwidth is worth much less on today's market)..  

I could go on, but I will close here for now..

[Keith]
 
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robbe Gibson wrote:

>
> Maybe the fundamental question might be:  Is the information provided
> by this group worth enough to me that I would pay some fee to receive
> it?  Is it worth $1.00/month?  Is it worth $12.00/year?(Same money
> but it sounds worse) Is it worth $20.00/year?  What would the list
> membership be if members were required to pay ANYTHING to receive it?

To some extent, I agree with you.. certainly, the service must be "paid 
for somehow"  A few points though...

1)  Yahoo! has been showing a profit..

2)    They are apparently seeking to maximize the bottom-line, 
apparently to strengthen themselves for the next round of buyouts and 
mergers.. not to provide better services or better the company

3)    No-one forced YAHOO! to purchase e-groups, as an example..

The problem, as I see it today,  is as follows...

Yahoo got told in no uncertain terms by listmembers
that they would NOT  pay for the privilege of being spammed... Yahoo is 
not simply interested in making a profit, they are interested in
short-term profit, and maximizing markup.. Elsewise, they might have
offered a paid (advertising free) membership to list members, as well as 
an advertising supported one.. Instead, they proved their own greed (or 
stupidity in being unwilling too truly chance altering the paradigm)  in 
wanting BOTH the advertising and the fees..  They boxed themselves in 
like an attorney who goes only for murder one, when manslaughter might 
 be an available charge, only to find the jury acquitting the
defendant.,..  That kind of idiocy cost Napoleon Moscow too..

No-one begrudges them revenue, but do you think they might even TRY to 
coordinate advertising with list content?

Wouldn't ads from EPSON, MediaStreet, TSS, Lyson, Luminos, Canon, etc. 
get more clickthroughs on this list than do the random ads we get now?

Instead, we get adds for X10 wireless cameras, credit repair,
scholarships, cd's, whatever...  They have naturally targeted lists and
yet they use birdshot from a blunderbuss to target their advertising..
 Talk about "not a clue!"

The fact is, they want a quick and easy, no-effort way to make an
assured revenue stream.. That doesn't exist in any business.. It existed 
for a brief time in the dot-com lands, but not today...  

If they don't tailor their ENTIRE model to the real world, it won't 
work.. Right now they are only apparently focused upon the short-term 
cash-flow without doing the obvious things I mentioned about advertising 
etc.. You don't advertise Geritol on the Cartoon channel or Nick at 
Night... they seem to be at a loss when it comes to learning some of the 
basic lessons traditional media have known for years..

>
> Is the information on this or any other group worth more than what is
> presently being paid?
> If so, there are lots of options and all of them are more or less
> spam-free and ad-free.

Such as?

Which of those options preserves the current  group oriented format, 
prevents spam abuse and culling of names, and has the same real-time 
response cycle. And there is no guarantee that any hosted service will 
remain ad/spam free.  Clearly YAHOO is trying to redefine the paradigm 
unilaterally... If they succeed unimpeded, others will follow suit..

>
> If not, live with it as you are getting what you paid for.
>
>
But that is inaccurate... We have all already paid for past service by 
enduring the advertising becoming more and more intrusive, e-mail spam, 
etc.. And that would be a FAIR choice if people knew about the changes 
to their user and group preferences..  It's not at all fair when YAHOO! 
makes those changes in a covert and underhanded manner.

The issue is, like any in marketing,  what cost is the market willing to 
bear?

Complaints, etc.. tell the marketers where the boundaries are and how to 
take that into account when looking at cost/profit ratios.. One doesn't 
simply "vote with one's feet and leave"  as Harry Truman said.  There is 
feedback in the process other than simple numbers..

Basically what we have here is a cultural clash..

Those who think that information when given by the compiler/expert for 
free should remain so (the old net paradigm) vs. a new paradigm in which 
everything one puts out can be resold by someone else..

Not just the group info, but look at YAHOO! adding the option to allow 
ppl to buy prints made from files in the photo section... Did they set 
that up so that only owners of the images could initially do so, unless 
settings were changed by said owner... Nope..

As for bandwidth costs, there is a current substantial glut of 
bandwidth.  The problem is that many, perhaps including YAHOO, invested 
in bandwidth at pre-recession prices and now are stuck paying off those 
capital expenditure over-investments in leaner times (and times in which 
the bandwidth is worth much less on today's market)..  

I could go on, but I will close here for now..

[Keith]
 
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Keith,

I agree in general terms with almost everything you wrote. I'm not 
sure you can stuff a Yahoo or AOL into the marketing model you're 
trying to build.

>1)  Yahoo! has been showing a profit..

What's that got to do with the issue at hand?  Yahoo isn't known for 
it's benevolence. I'm guessing they're trying to make more money 
rather than save money. There is a difference. They're probably not 
interested offering dividends to their loyal users of free services.

>3)    No-one forced YAHOO! to purchase e-groups, as an example..

Who said that when you took over an entity you had to leave it intact?

>
>The problem, as I see it today,  is as follows...
>
>No-one begrudges them revenue, but do you think they might even TRY to
>coordinate advertising with list content?

That would cost more.

>
>Wouldn't ads from EPSON, MediaStreet, TSS, Lyson, Luminos, Canon, etc.
>get more clickthroughs on this list than do the random ads we get now?

Why not try to get one or several of the above to sponsor a list on 
their site and leave Yahoo?

>
>Instead, we get adds for X10 wireless cameras, credit repair,
>scholarships, cd's, whatever...  They have naturally targeted lists and
>yet they use birdshot from a blunderbuss to target their advertising..
>  Talk about "not a clue!"

The above are mass market appeal. Epson, et al are not likely to pay 
much for banners that may only appeal to a few thousand people. 
Consider it this way: How many people on the 'Digital BW' group have 
never heard of Epson? Now, the Hewlett Packard guys might want to 
throw a log on the fire.  :-)   I believe the 'Digital BW' group is 
way above average in size. For Yahoo to build a marketing staff 
around tailoring ads to groups of only a few hundred would make no 
economic sense.

>
>The fact is, they want a quick and easy, no-effort way to make an
>assured revenue stream.. That doesn't exist in any business.. It existed
>for a brief time in the dot-com lands, but not today...

Maybe, maybe not.  I guess they'll find out.  Most of California and 
a lot of Florida was built on that premise!

>
>
>If they don't tailor their ENTIRE model to the real world, it won't
>work..

That's exactly why there are no 'niche' ads/banners.

>  Right now they are only apparently focused upon the short-term
>cash-flow without doing the obvious things I mentioned about advertising
>etc.. You don't advertise Geritol on the Cartoon channel or Nick at
>Night... they seem to be at a loss when it comes to learning some of the
>basic lessons traditional media have known for years..

Shotgun advertising has been around for a long time....
And, given current marketing trends, you don't try to sell Geritol to 
old people either.

>
>  >
>  > Is the information on this or any other group worth more than what is
>  > presently being paid?
>  > If so, there are lots of options and all of them are more or less
>  > spam-free and ad-free.
>
>Such as?

The IBMWR organization for one.  The groups at DPreview, the DV-L 
list, all the majordomo stuff...there are lots of them out there. 
None of them were as easy to form as the yahoo groups.  As far as 
libraries, reference material, etc, the IBMWR list has more 
information on how to properly torque an oil filter than the sum 
total of information in the 'Digital BW' archive. Rebuilding the 
group on a different platform isn't impossible, but it would take a 
little work.  What price freedom?

>
>Which of those options preserves the current  group oriented format,
>prevents spam abuse and culling of names, and has the same real-time
>response cycle.

SPAM-abuse is greater on the Yahoo groups than any of the independent 
lists to which I belong.  Further, Yahoo hasn't been that real-time. 
I and others have had messages that would have gotten there faster 
via USPS.
Anyway, see the above lists.

>And there is no guarantee that any hosted service will
>remain ad/spam free.

Reference the above lists, I've never seen the spam discussions that 
Yahoo seems to generate. Of course, I've never noticed any banner 
ads, either.

>  Clearly YAHOO is trying to redefine the paradigm
>unilaterally... If they succeed unimpeded, others will follow suit..

They will probably succeed, but there will be fallout.  It may depend 
on how seriously others view either side of the issue.

>
>  >
>  > If not, live with it as you are getting what you paid for.
>  >
>  >
>But that is inaccurate... We have all already paid for past service by
>enduring the advertising becoming more and more intrusive, e-mail spam,
>etc..


If the user is willing to tolerate/ignore the ads, their perception 
is that the service is free.  And Yahoo is banking on that.  Of the 
groups that I presently am a member, I have not seen ANYONE willing 
to spend a few bucks to become ad-free.

>  And that would be a FAIR choice if people knew about the changes
>to their user and group preferences..  It's not at all fair when YAHOO!
>makes those changes in a covert and underhanded manner.

That's Yahoo...love it or leave it...

>
>The issue is, like any in marketing,  what cost is the market willing to
>bear?

My question, exactly!

>
>Complaints, etc.. tell the marketers where the boundaries are and how to
>take that into account when looking at cost/profit ratios.. One doesn't
>simply "vote with one's feet and leave"  as Harry Truman said.  There is
>feedback in the process other than simple numbers..

When you have marketing people and trends such as Paypal's people 
making statements that they don't give any real credence to letters 
of complaint as those complainers are just a vocal minority that 
would complain about anything, voting with your feet is just about 
the only other choice.


I still think the question of the day is: Is the information from 
this group or another worth paying anything for?
Again, no reflection on any individual or group.  Simply what is the 
information worth?

I'm done.
Please, everyone go out(or in) and make some images, take some 
pictures, create some art, or whatever it is you do.  If that's not 
more satisfying than typing on a keyboard, then.... oh never mind. 
And if you bring one back alive, consider adding it the the group's 
vast library of 2  (two!!!) images.  Strange, a photo group that has 
50 or 60 pages of mathematical formulas but only two photos!   :-) 
:-)   :-)  Just kidding!

Robbe Gibson
www.robbepp.com
'00 R1100RT, K6RAG, '01 TJ, '71 Westy, F5, EOS-1HV, D30, Wisner tech 
field 4x5, G4 Powerbook
Pick whichever floats your wagon. :-)

Oh yeah, and if anyone in the Orange County, Southern California area 
is interested in getting together for some 'my clog is bigger than 
your clog' stories, I'll buy the first round!

Robbe, Keith, All,

While my opinion of Yahoo is on a par with everyone else's, I think we may
have wandered rather far off topic for the group. Could we wrap this thread
up?

Thanks,
Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbe Gibson" <videocinema@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] [Fwd: Formal Shot across Yahoo!'s Bow.. -- they
may be violating their posted privacy policy]


> Hi Keith,
>
> I agree in general terms with almost everything you wrote. I'm not
> sure you can stuff a Yahoo or AOL into the marketing model you're
> trying to build.
>
> >1)  Yahoo! has been showing a profit..
>
> What's that got to do with the issue at hand?  Yahoo isn't known for
> it's benevolence. I'm guessing they're trying to make more money
> rather than save money. There is a difference. They're probably not
> interested offering dividends to their loyal users of free services.
>
> >3)    No-one forced YAHOO! to purchase e-groups, as an example..
>
> Who said that when you took over an entity you had to leave it intact?
>
> >
> >The problem, as I see it today,  is as follows...
> >
> >No-one begrudges them revenue, but do you think they might even TRY to
> >coordinate advertising with list content?
>
> That would cost more.
>
> >
> >Wouldn't ads from EPSON, MediaStreet, TSS, Lyson, Luminos, Canon, etc.
> >get more clickthroughs on this list than do the random ads we get now?
>
> Why not try to get one or several of the above to sponsor a list on
> their site and leave Yahoo?
>
> >
> >Instead, we get adds for X10 wireless cameras, credit repair,
> >scholarships, cd's, whatever...  They have naturally targeted lists and
> >yet they use birdshot from a blunderbuss to target their advertising..
> >  Talk about "not a clue!"
>
> The above are mass market appeal. Epson, et al are not likely to pay
> much for banners that may only appeal to a few thousand people.
> Consider it this way: How many people on the 'Digital BW' group have
> never heard of Epson? Now, the Hewlett Packard guys might want to
> throw a log on the fire.  :-)   I believe the 'Digital BW' group is
> way above average in size. For Yahoo to build a marketing staff
> around tailoring ads to groups of only a few hundred would make no
> economic sense.
>
> >
> >The fact is, they want a quick and easy, no-effort way to make an
> >assured revenue stream.. That doesn't exist in any business.. It existed
> >for a brief time in the dot-com lands, but not today...
>
> Maybe, maybe not.  I guess they'll find out.  Most of California and
> a lot of Florida was built on that premise!
>
> >
> >
> >If they don't tailor their ENTIRE model to the real world, it won't
> >work..
>
> That's exactly why there are no 'niche' ads/banners.
>
> >  Right now they are only apparently focused upon the short-term
> >cash-flow without doing the obvious things I mentioned about advertising
> >etc.. You don't advertise Geritol on the Cartoon channel or Nick at
> >Night... they seem to be at a loss when it comes to learning some of the
> >basic lessons traditional media have known for years..
>
> Shotgun advertising has been around for a long time....
> And, given current marketing trends, you don't try to sell Geritol to
> old people either.
>
> >
> >  >
> >  > Is the information on this or any other group worth more than what is
> >  > presently being paid?
> >  > If so, there are lots of options and all of them are more or less
> >  > spam-free and ad-free.
> >
> >Such as?
>
> The IBMWR organization for one.  The groups at DPreview, the DV-L
> list, all the majordomo stuff...there are lots of them out there.
> None of them were as easy to form as the yahoo groups.  As far as
> libraries, reference material, etc, the IBMWR list has more
> information on how to properly torque an oil filter than the sum
> total of information in the 'Digital BW' archive. Rebuilding the
> group on a different platform isn't impossible, but it would take a
> little work.  What price freedom?
>
> >
> >Which of those options preserves the current  group oriented format,
> >prevents spam abuse and culling of names, and has the same real-time
> >response cycle.
>
> SPAM-abuse is greater on the Yahoo groups than any of the independent
> lists to which I belong.  Further, Yahoo hasn't been that real-time.
> I and others have had messages that would have gotten there faster
> via USPS.
> Anyway, see the above lists.
>
> >And there is no guarantee that any hosted service will
> >remain ad/spam free.
>
> Reference the above lists, I've never seen the spam discussions that
> Yahoo seems to generate. Of course, I've never noticed any banner
> ads, either.
>
> >  Clearly YAHOO is trying to redefine the paradigm
> >unilaterally... If they succeed unimpeded, others will follow suit..
>
> They will probably succeed, but there will be fallout.  It may depend
> on how seriously others view either side of the issue.
>
> >
> >  >
> >  > If not, live with it as you are getting what you paid for.
> >  >
> >  >
> >But that is inaccurate... We have all already paid for past service by
> >enduring the advertising becoming more and more intrusive, e-mail spam,
> >etc..
>
>
> If the user is willing to tolerate/ignore the ads, their perception
> is that the service is free.  And Yahoo is banking on that.  Of the
> groups that I presently am a member, I have not seen ANYONE willing
> to spend a few bucks to become ad-free.
>
> >  And that would be a FAIR choice if people knew about the changes
> >to their user and group preferences..  It's not at all fair when YAHOO!
> >makes those changes in a covert and underhanded manner.
>
> That's Yahoo...love it or leave it...
>
> >
> >The issue is, like any in marketing,  what cost is the market willing to
> >bear?
>
> My question, exactly!
>
> >
> >Complaints, etc.. tell the marketers where the boundaries are and how to
> >take that into account when looking at cost/profit ratios.. One doesn't
> >simply "vote with one's feet and leave"  as Harry Truman said.  There is
> >feedback in the process other than simple numbers..
>
> When you have marketing people and trends such as Paypal's people
> making statements that they don't give any real credence to letters
> of complaint as those complainers are just a vocal minority that
> would complain about anything, voting with your feet is just about
> the only other choice.
>
>
> I still think the question of the day is: Is the information from
> this group or another worth paying anything for?
> Again, no reflection on any individual or group.  Simply what is the
> information worth?
>
> I'm done.
> Please, everyone go out(or in) and make some images, take some
> pictures, create some art, or whatever it is you do.  If that's not
> more satisfying than typing on a keyboard, then.... oh never mind.
> And if you bring one back alive, consider adding it the the group's
> vast library of 2  (two!!!) images.  Strange, a photo group that has
> 50 or 60 pages of mathematical formulas but only two photos!   :-)
> :-)   :-)  Just kidding!
>
> Robbe Gibson
> www.robbepp.com
> '00 R1100RT, K6RAG, '01 TJ, '71 Westy, F5, EOS-1HV, D30, Wisner tech
> field 4x5, G4 Powerbook
> Pick whichever floats your wagon. :-)
>
> Oh yeah, and if anyone in the Orange County, Southern California area
> is interested in getting together for some 'my clog is bigger than
> your clog' stories, I'll buy the first round!
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Martin Wesley wrote:

> Could we wrap this thread
> up?
>
Sure...

Well, I am considering actually setting up a listserver to host the 
EPSON printer group I moderate..  Whether I do so, or not, will depend 
upon YAHOO!..

The option of having any ONE specific vendor host or sponsor the list is 
less attractive, as it would likely entail some chilling of  negative 
reviews relating to such a vendor...

So, if I do make the move, how much interest would there be in moving 
this list there also, were I to make the resources available? 
 Moderators, etc. would remain the same as they are now.. Any ads on the 
actual posts would be targeted to the printer community... We would NOT 
allow distribution or culling of the list members' e-mail addresses..


[Keith]
 
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>
>
> Well, I am considering actually setting up a listserver to host the
> EPSON printer group I moderate..  Whether I do so, or not, will depend
> upon YAHOO!..
>

Before anyone asks WHY they should believe my commitment to personal 
privacy is inherently less suspect than YAHOO!'s, I invite you to review 
the following URL's (I am the "Krebs" referenced as the lead  plaintiff):

  SSN Legal Links Krebs v. Rutgers
<http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/legal.html#ferpa> 
 http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/legal.html#ferpa

  Discussion - Government and Legal SSN's Krebs v. Rutgers
<http://www.msacroa.org/news/disclegal.html#top5> 
http://www.msacroa.org/news/disclegal.html#top5
<http://www.msacroa.org/news/disclegal.html#top5>

  Use of Social Security numbers Krebs v. Rutgers  
<http://www.uncg.edu/cha/UNIVERSITY_COUNSEL/FAQ/SSN.html>
http://www.uncg.edu/cha/UNIVERSITY_COUNSEL/FAQ/SSN.html

I also served on a governmental interagency task force, assigned the job 
of increasing informational privacy and security... To me, these issues 
are quite personal.. Nuff said...?
[Keith]
 
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith,

I have looked at this a bit and Tom O'Connell really researched it. The
problem seems to be finding a place that satisfies both the people who like
to follow the group on line and those who want to receive it by e-mail.
There seemed to be any number of options that did one or the other better
then Yahoo but not both. This list is divided about 50/50 in preference.

The other stopper is how to move the archives and we have done a lot with
the Files, Bookmarks, etc in Yahoo.

Being free of any connections to any commercial entity involved in Digital
B&W was one of our founding concepts so we would need to be cautious in that
regard.

I am open to an alternative but I have to admit to being skeptical of
finding one at this point in time.

Have you been on the Yahoo Moderators list?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ygroups_moderators/?yguid=76919450

Finding somewhere else to go has been a big topic. You would think Yahoo
might take a hint.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] [Fwd: Formal Shot across Yahoo!'s Bow.. -- they
may be violating their posted privacy policy]


> Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> > Could we wrap this thread
> > up?
> >
> Sure...
>
> Well, I am considering actually setting up a listserver to host the
> EPSON printer group I moderate..  Whether I do so, or not, will depend
> upon YAHOO!..
>
> The option of having any ONE specific vendor host or sponsor the list is
> less attractive, as it would likely entail some chilling of  negative
> reviews relating to such a vendor...
>
> So, if I do make the move, how much interest would there be in moving
> this list there also, were I to make the resources available?
>  Moderators, etc. would remain the same as they are now.. Any ads on the
> actual posts would be targeted to the printer community... We would NOT
> allow distribution or culling of the list members' e-mail addresses..
>
>
> [Keith]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>