Your opinion please: Some of the posts on the Member blog at BillWhittle.com are so cogent, thought-provoking, and entertaining, that I wonder if we should allow non-Members access to read (not write) some or all of them.
Several options occurred to me. Let me know which — if any — appeal to you.
- Editor selects some blog posts to place ‘before the veil’ instead of behind it.
- Member up-votes determine which posts emerge from behind the paywall.
- The author of each post determines whether it’s for Members only, or not.
- All future Member blog posts become visible to non-Members.
- The complete archive of Member blog posts — past and future — gets unlocked.
- The status quo prevails because ‘we’ve never done it that way before.’ TRADITION!
In all of these scenarios, Member Forums remain the exclusive purview of the Membership, so we still have a private salon for the dedicated patriots who make this enterprise possible.
Please comment here with your favorite option, or supply one that hasn’t occurred to me yet. Thank you.
36 replies on “Your Opinion: Should We Let Non-Members Read Member Blog?”
Does this not open the site to more oversight from the web hosting “authorities?”
Personally, I don’t mind having the blog posts go public with two qualifiers:
I think that if non-members can read the blog, it may provide incentive for them to join up so they can also participate.
Don’t really care. Either way, I’m still gonna keep payin’ my dues. But if you guys, in your infinite wisdom think that making it free will drive traffic, go ahead. I’m fine w/ it.
The more I think about it, I do have an opinion. I think #3 is the way to go.
Oh decisions, decisions…
I understand and support both the desire to get the information and comment we post on BW.Com out there, and to give potential members an idea of what they’re missing, being out there in the howling wastes beyond the secure walls of Whittledom.
However, what I write is written for a particular audience. I’ve never written anything I wouldn’t/couldn’t defend in public, but I’d rather not have to spend time replying to vexatious comments from numerous lefty trolls.
Like Karl I use my own name (and picture) on here. I know that ill willers can, and no doubt do, spend money on memberships to monitor what the dangerous subversives on BW.com are up to, but I doubt there are many doing that. Putting content beyond the paywall would open up our content to a much wider array of folk (which is rather the point of course). I doubt I’d be subject to the attentions of Antifa types, but I am cautious about what I post online as the heritage sector in the UK is deeply Wokeist. I could easily lose work if something I wrote on here came to the attention of some of the folk I work with/for. I’d love to be gung-ho and “d**n their eyes!” about it (and maybe when the tourist trade picks up, I’ll be able to), but I also like being able to pay bills and buy food.
So, for me, I think a combination of 1 and 2, with 3 as a must. I’d not be happy with 4 and 5. 6, I’d be ok with, but I do think making some stuff available is a good idea. I’d need a bit of notice to adjust my profile as well.
There is the troll aspect I didn’t think of when I posted above. Could actually create more work for the mods and drive away users.
Counter-point: I’m mostly over at Insty. There’s a number of trolls trolling around. But it’s not to bad.
I like options 2 combined with 4. Although I really don’t post to the blog, I’m not sure I have much of a voice. But if it will bring in more members to support and potentially add new programming, I’m all for it.
I don’t post a lot of comments here. I much prefer to be a ‘lurker’ and see what others have to say. However, I do like the third option.
I could really only vote for option 3, and let the poster decide if their words should be publicly viewable. There might be a need for double postings, both inside and outside, if comments from inside are desired.
To ACTS point about real names, I used mine here because I knew it was a paywall feature and I would be on the same line as anyone that could see me. There are more than a few with my own name (and I’ve gotten the misdirected e-mails to prove it) so I am not exactly afraid of someone tracking me down.
I would rather not have my name out in public so the anonymized feature would also be on my vote.
Ok, Scott. I read this and purposefully let it simmer for a while. I think from a growth standpoint, there is a great deal of benefit of making Blog posts available to anyone who comes to this website. The discussion on the content and those posts should remain member protected; but honestly all Blogs could be before the veil. But I would have them anonymous. I think of myself less as member and more as contributing producer.
An easy method to click a box to say, yes I would like this outside the paywall, is fine. But there should be no name and no access to the comments or discussion. If people want to see that, as others have said, they can ante up.
BTW – what we really need is a Scrappleface channel on BW(dot)com where a certain someone can let their satire shine.
I asked them to make Steve watch the Sunday talk shows again. I miss “Hair of the Dog”.
If I may be so bold and blunt as to ask, what is in it for me? As a paying member, I have the opportunity to read a lot of posts, some of them worthy of PJ Media, The Daily Wire, Townhall.com, etc. Others frankly are not so good (my own attempts are sadly most likely the latter). For those that are of high quality, what gain is there to pay for the opportunity to write a thought provoking article to have it freely published? It seems as though we are including a check or money order with a letter to the editor of a major newspaper in hopes of getting published.
I’m bouncing back and forth between options 3 and 6.
No. Let them pay to read, thereby supporting Bill Whittle dot com. Now, you can tease with a paragraph or two to where it fades into “to read more join bw dot com.
Ok, thoughts it is …
#1 — Too much work and expense. Becomes more work and expense as site grows and staff has to deal with this.
#2 — Too fickle. Not everyone on the site reads every single blog. Plus personalities can get in the way of some really good stuff. I.E. People downvoting something because they have a bone to pick with the person who posted it. Or vice-verse too, someone who just likes a particular member and what he has to say clicks the “thumbs up” button. Too many variables and to compensate for them even more work and expense.
#3 — Good idea, with a “button” that just unmasks the post to save effort and expense on the part of the site operations people. Not what I consider a requirement though if this is the only way then it is. See following …
#4 — Fine with me. I can’t speak for anyone except myself but I don’t say anything in here that I wouldn’t say to a person’s face IRL.
#5 — Also fine with me for the same reasons as #4 above.
#6 — Disagree. If you think adding something like this will help grow the site, that’s a primary mission driver. Not only to keep you guys working and providing content for us. Getting the word out IS the mission. When the mission coincides with increased presence and revenue it’s a win-win thing for all of us. Go for it.
UPDATE: Points
#1 — Virtually the same result as #3 above.
#2 — Not a bad idea, because you really don’t want the few wingnuts we have in here posting about 9/11 conspiracies and other such drek that will drag down site reputation and give ammunition to our adversaries. Even though it takes up the time of operations people you still need a filter between the absurd and the public-at-large to keep this place as clean as possible both in rep and in content. I know you need the revenue but take my word for it, you do not want to set out bait and draw the wingnuts, you’ll lose serious subscribers if you go that way. Not filtering seems to me to be counter-mission and the last thing we need is backstepping, even a little bit.
#3 — Extremely agree with this one. Use some other designation so that people know they’re reading the same member’s posts but …
A. There are too many people in here using their real name. You’re asking for trouble and possibly even liability burdens. We don’t need any ANTIFA types tracking down people in here and harassing them. There’s no need to make that kind of thing any easier.
B. This will prevent spoofing, password guessing/password cracking and all the other ills of commentary websites where a bad guy gets in on a good guy’s credentials and masquerades as that user. This is a real thing, I’m not kidding.
C. This allows the normal back and forth we all enjoy in here without unduly exposing the members. I think that letting outside people view the content is a positive but letting them do much more than that without membership is inviting trouble. If they have membership, no matter what moniker they post under, like me, you have the credit card and billing records that could be used to track down someone if it came to that. Don’t forget there are single women and such commenting in here, their well-being should be taken into consideration too. If you expose member names then you have nothing that can be easily used on a tech savvy bad actor except to ban their IP … If you’re even aware of what they’re doing. Which is as good as useless. It’s been done to me* and with multiple accounts, a VPN and a few other etc. tricks it is just a minor inconvenience.
Good instinct, good marketing, good way to disseminate the Conservative viewpoint. Go for it, it’s a win-win for all of us.
(*I got banned from MSNBC which was one of the earlier sites that allowed comments in the “News” field, I figured out a way to give lots of upvotes and “likes” to conservative comments and lots of downvotes to Leftists. MSNBC hated that. So they banned me. Didn’t slow me down much and I only left there because it became such a boring echo chamber. Though I’ll admit it was kind of fun sticking a thumb in their eye and dancing around their ban button. People like me get a sort of sick joy from doing things like that, be glad I’m on your side 😉 )
Heh heh … I’ll be the wingnut for this one. Three words: zombie target practice.
Yeah, but not everyone is as eager as you to have nuts in black clothes and balaclavas show up at their front door.
I don’t want that. I’m not afraid of them either. I just don’t want to go through the bother that comes after puncturing a few of them. Killing human beings, even in self defense, has ramifications even if it’s legal and you get dragged through the trouble and expense to come out on the other side exonerated.
It’s no small matter and I don’t speak for you but I’m still fairly confident there are quite a few people here that would prefer to avoid that kind of thing altogether.
Plus it’s messy and I don’t want to have to clean up a bunch of internal organs, urine, feces and circulatory fluids from my property. Who knows what kind of nasty diseases those nitwits are carrying? I don’t need to deal with their biohazards.
UPDATE: I wonder if a hybrid might work, like so:
What do you think?
My underlying thought to all of this is to give the pre-Member reader a sense of what he might be missing, and to give wider circulation to some of the excellent (and aptly stated) ideas that emerge here.
FOMO* can be an enticement tool to lure folks in.
*Fear Of Missing Out
Just realized I misunderstood the question at my previous answer, I thought we’re talking about comments, not the blog entries.
An it’s still not completely clear what would happen: just the blog goes public or also all the comments under it, or a curated subset.
Just posting the blog, stripped feels lame, While going all-in opens a can of worms. (Especially as comments are added over time.) Though certainly that would be the ideal.
Sounds good to me. The only thing I would add is maybe a sort feature which allows people to rank the posts by popularity and maybe an editor’s pick of the day/week.
My reasoning is that I’ve found older videos of Bill’s which remain valuable yet unknown to current members. If good posts are buried in the blog never to be seen again, new and potential users will miss them, and in my opinion, you’d be tossing aside material that could be used to attract new people.
I would also allow people to mark their posts with hashtags or choose categories from a list you create. Then if people want to see all the posts on a certain topic, they could bring up the discussion.
Searching by date range might also be useful.
I don’t know how much the website allows you to do, but those things might help whether you’re searching a topic or just need to find that one post where someone said something you liked or linked an article, study or a video that you remember seeing yet can’t seem to remember the exact post title or author.
Of course, there’s at least a 50% chance I’m completely full of it, so do with the above what you will!
I’d vote for the following:
Member’s names would be omitted from the public posts as this feature would make BW.com more public.
I don’t think that the editors should have to pick any number of posts to make viewable (possibly considered publishing, as mentioned by others). I Plus, it sounds like a lot of work, you guys do a lot of great work already!
Also, I can see where upvoting could cause an incentive for reverse trolling, if there is such a thing.
Instead, maybe use a random number generator or similar method to pick 3 or so posts to make viewable to non-members, and maybe do this weekly, twice a week.
Another possibility, limit the user to viewing 3 posts per session??
Thank you, Susan.
Not sure I’d agree with that. That opens it up to foreign agent bots posting to troll others and the comments section will have a million comments that nobody reads. I personally stand behind my opinions. If you want to make anonymous statements with no accountability maybe just use twitter and a fake name. China & Russia love anonymous comments that they can make automatically million times an hours.
Hey Scott! Hope your Saturday night is going swimmingly.
“Some of the posts on the Member blog at BillWhittle.com are so cogent, thought-provoking, and entertaining…:”
Thank you, and as per your voicemail, I’ll be sure to get you my dimensions for the erection of the statue of me for placement in your lobby.
OK. OK. Maaaybe there’s other contributors who meet the bar on rare occasion with whom I’ll be happy to share the credit.
First of all, thank you for soliciting our input. It certainly makes me feel valued as a member and is deeply appreciated.
Second, I also appreciate the investment of time, effort and thought by my fellow members into their posts which you so aptly describe. In addition to the superb content, the blog and forums as venues for intelligent discussion are a significant draw for me.
Now down to business. There are several reasons I would make noteworthy blog posts available:
1) When I’m riding the rails of the YouTube comment sections, I refer you, Bill and Steve and this community as much as I can. Linking videos is nice, but posting well-produced user content for all to see would be an added draw.
2) As superb as any video may be, it still requires opening and viewing as opposed to the more in-depth invitation of a blog post via the partial first paragraph. At least for me, it’s a further draw as the first few sentences show me where the poster is going with the idea in addition to the title.
3) The display of intelligent, member-produced content informs the viewer that we’re not interested in wasting our time with the insults and baseless accusations that plague other forms of social media. Though I will say I see such juvenile behavior being tolerated less and less with the passage of time, I think that it has turned off an audience which prefers intelligent, civil discussion and that presenting our group in such a way will attract a better audience leading to better discussions and better solutions.
So that’s the why. Here’s the how…
I don’t know where you guys fall as far as Section 230. I’m not an attorney, though I do play one on TV and routinely spend my nights at a Holiday Inn Express. Some of my better work…
https://youtu.be/ZlCLuIwuVgQ
I wouldn’t think that picking and choosing blog posts available to members would qualify you as a publisher subject to liability, but my advice would be to consider the possibility as you move forward with other changes in case it becomes relevant.
As far as what to display to non-members, if I were you, I would do a revolving top ten (or pick your number). This would allow you to rotate articles that are top-ten worthy if you have more than ten worthy articles.
Such a framework allows you to pull articles from the past which apply to the topic of the day. For example, say today someone writes a fantastic piece on the history of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Then one day two years from now Palestine fires more missiles. You could pull that piece from the archives and place it front and center again, comparing it to new offerings.
NOTE: The ideal solution for topics like Israel-Palestine, gun control, abortion, etc. is a syllabus of articles and videos which we can just hand to people and say, “Here. Watch this if you want to bring yourself up to speed in ‘xx’ hours,” but we’re not there yet.
As far as privacy, let members decide. If someone wants to submit their post for your consideration, have them check a box when submitting their post agreeing to just that. Anyone submitting articles are not looking for privacy.
While attention hounds might submit the same material as both a blog post and an article, if their offering is good and rises to the top, display it in one or the other. If it isn’t, it will fall into oblivion on its own.
I would also give people the ability to submit articles outside of the blog for publication…even feature-length articles. Follow the lead of substack. Who knows? Maybe people looking for a voice will come to you and bring their audience with them, increasing your visibility among content creators and the public in general. Maybe consider re-posting articles from authors such as Glenn Greenwald and Alex Berenson.
My main reason for suggesting a separate section for articles is that some days I have multiple things to write on the topics of the day, but I don’t want to be that guy that dominates the blog. The ability to submit articles outside of the blog would take care of this.
Granted, I could do this in the forums, but that doesn’t help as far as attracting outside visitors as potential members who could submit articles of their own. People are craving the opportunity to speak freely.
Place the articles you approve (or all of them with no filtering) in a separate section sorted by topic and cross-referenced with hashtags attached to each article submitted. Have the user who submits check each category under which they would like the article to appear.
Give the user a limit as far as the number of categories in which they would like their article to appear and let them choose the best ones. If they know they are limited to three, for example, then they’ll choose the best three rather than checking the box for each and every category.
Seeking to minimize the requirements on your time, I’ve assumed the site can send you the new submissions for review and placement based on who raised their hand for consideration by flagging their blog post or submitting an article. Therefore, I don’t believe that you will need to invest any time in compiling the daily list requiring review.
If anything challenges your availability, it will be the volume of submissions going forward. They may exceed the time you as one person can dedicate toward judicious oversight as prioritization requires time.
For the time being, it seems as if you’re going to be able to decide which blog posts belong at the top and which articles deserve the most visibility. Time will tell if that needs to change.
Member voting could provide guidance, but I wouldn’t make that the sole arbiter for three reasons:
1) it’s too easily manipulated by downvoting trolls (disallowing down votes would get rid of this problem) just as trolls write negative Yelp reviews for restaurants they dislike, even out of spite,
2) member input wouldn’t match the regularity of your daily judgment. Daily site visitation varies from member to member. On the other hand, you are present and attentive day in and day out (to the benefit of us all), and;
3) most members are not going to review the entire library of submissions available in order to effectively judge and produce a genuine top ten.
So my advice would be to accept member voting as directional but to use your discretion as the ultimate determination of the top posts/articles.
I would not make all posts available to non-members. Mystery attracts the curious, in this case as potential members.
I can’t think of a good reason to access archived posts assuming a) the available history goes back a couple years and b) special requests to go back further could be accommodated for specific research projects with an article in mind. The only thing that comes to mind is being able to ask and answer, “What were we thinking when such and such happened?”
Those are my thoughts for now. Thank you all sincerely for your effort and dedication.
I appreciate your thoughtful suggestions, Jeremy.
You’re welcome Scott. It’s the least I can do for my country and my fellow Americans as we fight to regain control of our government and preserve America (and the world) for future generations.
Whether producing or sharing content (or both), opening people’s eyes to the threat of communism we face is something everyone can do regardless of age or income level. I do it gladly knowing that every lit bit counts toward our end goal of returning to a normal life of freedom.
Thank you again too.
I think it would have been a good idea to make them all public back at the first for-member push a year ago.
Since then the lot of good authors left for various reasons and many more withdrawn. And the overall quality/appeal dropped significantly.
For that reason I think the “editor picks” is a best way to go. Especially if it results the editor to read the posts and maybe react too. As, while at it, several people left because we expected Bill will engage at least in some discussion.
While I agree with Scott that there are a fair number of really good member posts here I would prefer that we stay private, and agree with Barbara’s points.
Thanks, Lynda.
I could go either way, but I’m leaning more toward what Barbara said two comments down – if they want to join the game let ’em pay. If someone wants to get more traffic for a blog post, Floping Aces (where I’m a contributor) allows for guest posts. Guest posting is how I got started there =8^)
I most prefer option 3. The author determined public or not.
Number 6, not because of “tradition” but b/c of unintended consequences and personal accountability. And the fact is that you can seldom go back to the way it was before. What happens when and if it turns out degrading the system we have now? Who decided that we needed to change things? More traffic needed? WHY? Come on, man!
If they want to be recognized and read, then let them do what the rest of us are doing—PAY! Skin in the game and all that…! Beside that, we have an excellent product here . Isn’t it worth the fee to have access to BW?
Thank you, Barbara, for your thoughts.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that no one should be concerned about comments they post on ANY site being made public. With that said, perhaps the person’s name should be omitted to prevent a storm of hate mail finding its way through the blogosphere. There are too many Trolls out there hiding under the comment section bridges. On my blog site, http://www.captain-al-speaking.com, I don’t allow open comments. This is to prevent some of the “bathroom wall” behavior which has shown up here, as well as on almost every site that allows it. Rather, I ask that you send your comments to me instead. If I feel that they are reasonable and respectful, whether I agree with them or not, I frequently share them in a future post. I may make that a frequent feature in the future, so feel free to blast away!