Business

Trees and Things Fundraising Drive

Board of Directors.

Posted to Business on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Ready for a Jerry Lewis and Anne of Green Gables Marathon? If not, please donate a little bit of love to the cause. Last time we did this we raised over $1000 in two weeks - this time we'd like to exceed that and more. Keep your eye on the thread for regular updates about our progress, and details about how you can get a free iPod!


$0.00 »»»»» $100 »»»»» $200 »»»»» $300 »»»»» $400 »»»»» $500 »»»»» $600 »»»»» $700 »»»»» $800 »»»»» $900 »»»»» $1000 »»»»» $1100 »»»»» $1200 »»»»» $1300 »»»»» $1400 »»»»» $1500 »»»»» $1600 »»»»» $1700 »»»»» $1800 »»»»» $1900 »»»»» $2000 »»»»»

When Shane first established Trees and Things as our new home, we had a clunky little website (remember that shovel?) that lacked many of the features we had become accustomed to.  We didn't know if what we'd created would last very long or if we had any chance of establishing a viable user community.  We've come a long way since then.  We've survived to the ripe old age of one and a half, which is at least 50 in Internet years.

During this time we've taken your input and implemented a major site redesign, created many cool new features, and recreated some old features that were sorely missed.  We've also seen substantial increases in user activity, and a very welcome boost in new account creation.  The submission queue is overflowing with quality submissions, and we regularly see stories with 50 or more comments.  We've cultivated a vibrant, active and intelligent user community.  Trees and Things is doing very well indeed.  The Board of Directors cannot thank you, the users of TnT, enough for your part in creating this success.  Your donations have kept the lights on, and your participation has raised the bar for intelligent discourse on the Internet.

But there's more to be done.  All of us would like to see TnT grow further.  We need more users, and we always seem to have more new features to implement than we have time and resources to implement them.  We've also reached the point where we need to finally incorporate, establishing Trees and Things, Inc. as a California non-profit corporation.  Incorporation will allow us to take tax deductible donations, provide important legal protections for the Board of Directors, and create a stable legal foundation on which to base future growth.

Thus far we've done almost everything with volunteer power, but to grow further we need more than just volunteers.  Incorporation requires the involvement of legal professionals who tend not to work for free.  We've experimented with advertising to attract new users with some limited success, but we've been constrained by lack of funds.  We'd love to have a graphic designer redo our stock photo section icons, but again, professional graphic designers cost money.  If we could afford to hire programmers to work on our site's code, we could implement new features faster and be more responsive to your input.   Profwhat has done an amazing job whipping our site's code into shape, but he's only one man, and eventually he will need a break (or a paycheck).

To accomplish all that we have planned, we need your monetary support.  So, today we ask you to donate generously to allow us to continue to grow and improve Trees and Things.  You can donate by clicking here: Donate to support Trees and Things .  

We will be creating a new "Contributors" page to honor those who contribute to TnT's continued success, either as volunteers or with their monetary support.  If you want your TnT user name to be included on this page, please mention your user name in your paypal payment comments, otherwise your donation will be accepted anonymously.

If you'd like to check up on the current state of our finances, click here for our current financial statement.

Shane also has a special promotional deal through webqualityhost.net, the company that provides webhosting services for Trees and Things.  Shane will donate one free month of treesandthings.com webhosting AND give away an iPod shuffle (while supplies last)  to anyone who signs up for a  webhosting account at webqualityhost.net and pays one year in advance.  To claim your ipod email shane@webqualityhost.net and include your domain name and the address you used to sign up with.  There will be 20 iPod shuffles available for this offer.  This offer expires 2 weeks from the date the story is posted.  Limit one per customer.

Donate to support Trees and Things

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by Board of Directors, donations, fund raising, we're broke! (all tags)

This story: 49 comments (14 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
13

Incorporation

profwhat.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST

5.00 (astute, interesting, informative)

From the December 21, 2006 minutes:  "Rich has folded the Nolo-inspired changes into the Draft Bylaws and the Draft Articles of Incorporation.  If no one has any problems with the documents by the next meeting (week of Jan 8), he's going to print them out and start sending them out for signatures."

What happened to that?  Were they sent around for signatures or not?  If they have been signed, why haven't they been sent to the Secretary of State?

From what I can tell, the delay in incorporation is being caused by a belief that a lawyer is required.  Reviewing the board minutes after December 21, 2006, I see no discussion of incorporation except for Rich's reports of his conversations with lawyers.  This view is now so pervasive that the writeup says:  "Incorporation requires the involvement of legal professionals who tend not to work for free."

You do not need a lawyer to start a corporation.  The Secretary of State will not reject your application because it wasn't sent in by a lawyer.  I have argued as much twice before.  You probably will want a lawyer if you are forming a joint venture between two international mining combines, or conducting a reverse triangular merger of two businesses, but not for this.  You are not creating the next General Motors; you're forming a convenient corporate entity so that there's a bank account to put money into.  No regulatory approval is involved here, and you aren't doing anything you can't undo with a later amendment.  Hiring a lawyer for this easy task is like paying a dentist to brush your teeth.  

I understand from a subqueue comment that by "requires," you mean that the Board has decided it wants a lawyer as a matter of prudence, not because you mistakenly believe it is legally required.  Where did this notion come from?  After having drafted and approved bylaws and articles, when and why did the Board decide to put the brakes on the process and hire a lawyer?  I'm not sure the Board really did formally decide that (I never saw it in the minutes, but I haven't read the chat logs), but if it did, please reconsider.

What are the upsides of hiring a lawyer?  Well, the lawyer could spot problems.  But, how bad could those problems be?  The worst I can think of is that the IRS would tax our revenues.  But corporate income as small as ours is not taxable; indeed, one of the lawyers Rich talked says that revenues under $5,000 are not taxable.  Ironcially, the only way I see TNT ever making that much money is if you actually do try to raise multiple thousands of dollars... to pay a lawyer.

Now, what are the downsides of hiring a lawyer?  

First, it's taking too long.  You've spent 13 months trying to find a competent lawyer in our price range, and as far as I can tell there are still no candidates in mind.  The decision to consult a lawyer has created a massive gateway condition that has held up incorporation for far too long.  

Second, the cost.  You're looking at hundreds of dollars here (one lawyer Rich talked to was quoting prices in the thousands) at a time when the site's bank account is so low that you had to run this sub.  I hope that the time never comes when we run out of money to pay the server bill, but if that time does come, I hope we will have managed contributions as efficiently as possible and won't have spent thousands on rock-solid articles of incorporation.

I know that everyone agrees we should incorporate, but let me state more clearly why I think it is crucially important, and should now be the Board's highest priority.  Without incorporation, you've held up board elections, fundraising, and personal immunity from lawsuits for board members.  (Sorry, guys; without a corporation in place, you are the ones the Church of Scientology will sue).  You've also held up one thing that was important to me personally: creating a site with democratic leadership that is bigger than one owner.  

Personally, I'm delighted that the site we've all worked so hard on is finally showing real signs of activity.  I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to give money, but I'm really reluctant to do that until there's a corporation in place.  I'll even contribute toward the filing fee, if that's what the holdup is.

18

^ 13

Re: Incorporation

joshv.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:21:10 PM EST

2.50 (obnoxious)

Nobody on the Board is under the impression that there is any legal requirement that a lawyer be used to incorporate.  There is a general consensus that a review of the bylaws and articles of incorporate in a prudent step.  In creating these documents we followed various templates and other publicly available advice, but we also customized and tweaked.  It's not as if we are submitting boilerplate bylaws and articles.  There very well could be an issue with them and I happen to think that a few hours of review by an expert is more than prudent and worth the expense.

I do think incorporation has taken far longer than it should have.  The desire for legal review is not the reason for the hang up.  There were simply many many months where incorporation wasn't discussed by the Board at all.  Back when it was discussed, the desire to find a low cost or pro-bono lawyer was a hangup, because these rare creatures don't appear to exist.  Thus the mention of incorporation expenses as one of the reasons of the fund raising drive.  If we have the funds, we can simply approach a regularly old lawyer, and pay them for two or three hours of their time - quick and simple.

19

^ 18

Re: Incorporation

profwhat.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:44:23 PM EST

none

Josh, can you more clearly articulate what risks you hope you are mitigating by consulting a lawyer?

24

^ 19

Re: Incorporation

joshv.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:45:59 AM EST

2.50 (obnoxious)

I might ask you what makes you so confident that there are no problems with the by-laws and article of incorporation, and that if there are, that they can be easily corrected?  Do you have some relevant experience with incorporating non-profits that you can share?  Do you know for a fact that our corporation won't be rejected by CA due to something we've overlooked?  Do you know for a fact that will get the CA and Federal non-profit tax exemption without having to amend our by-laws or even refile?  Do you know that there isn't some technicality we've overlooked in our customizations that could be exploited by some future individual to destabilize the governance of trees and things?

I will admit that these are all unlikely.  The by-laws and articles of incorporation are probably just fine.  I helped create them, and I think we did a pretty good job.  Much of it's just good common sense.  But often times more subtle legal issues defy common sense, and there are some things that you just have to know from experience.  Because of this, you sometimes need to defer to an expert in the field and ask their advice.

And by the way, I do use a dentist to clean my teeth, twice a year.  We'd like a lawyer to give our by-laws and articles of incorporation a check-up - once.

25

^ 24

Re: Incorporation

profwhat.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:28:23 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Fair enough.  But are you considering the risks of not incorporating, and weighing them against the "unlikely" risks of incorporating without a lawyer?    Right now, one copyright lawsuit brought against the board of directors personally could shut this entire place down.

I don't claim there are no problems with the bylaws you guys wrote in 2006 -- in fact, I don't think I've even read them.  But the smartest lawyer in the world could not anticipate all future problems and solve them now.  That's why it is always possible to amend bylaws.  (You have a procedure in the bylaws that lets you amend them, right?)

Here is a compromise: why don't you incorporate now, trusting your careful work and the advice from the Nolo book, and then let the lawyer review the articles and bylaws afterward?  In another 13 months (or whenever), when that review is complete, the then-constituted board can correct problems the lawyer finds.

31

^ 25

Re: Incorporation

shane.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

If we are sued for copyright violation, or libel or some such thing, we are most likely finished even if we are incorporated.  Incorporated or not, our only option would probably be to remove the offending material, and hope they don't go after us for damages.

I do agree with your comments on incorporation - you've made a good argument that it is important to do - and that we should just do it - and fix any potential problems later.

32

^ 31

Re: Incorporation

thefadd.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST

3.33 (offtopic, interesting, interesting)

Given the distributed nature of our community, I'm not really concerned about something like that finishing "us" off. It would suck in the short term but we'd eventually get everybody back together at thingsdantrees.com through the power of the plastiverse.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

44

^ 24

Re: Incorporation

eduardo.

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST

1.00 (obnoxious)

Do you know that there isn't some technicality we've overlooked in our customizations that could be exploited by some future individual to destabilize the governance of trees and things?

Yeah, that poison pill provision will sure come in handy when Carl initiates his hostile takeover attempt.

Seriously, the only thing that should be keeping TnT from incorporation is the fact that it's a silly website where ~10 people go to discuss the upcoming increase in the cost of postage.

46

^ 44

Re: Incorporation

ms sue.

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:06:44 PM EST

4.50 (funny, astute)

Seriously, the only thing that should be keeping TnT from incorporation is the fact that it's a silly website where ~10 people go to discuss the upcoming increase in the cost of postage.

Eleven, apparently.

48

^ 44

Re: Incorporation

pO157.

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST

4.50 (brilliant)

Hey bro, I hate to break it to you, but that type of attitude is exactly why my entire participation at your website has consisted of a single AI comment (which apparently was thought highly enough of to be upmodded repeatedly). Why should I (or anybody else) even bother to participate on "the other side" if I have to put up with endless snark and mindless sycophants such as yourself flinging insults all around?

At least TnT has it together enough to not suffer from repeated outages for no clear reason and has not been advertising a downed chat server on its front page for months.

Come on.

Spread it on!

45

^ 44

Re: Incorporation

Coelacanth.

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:12:59 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

is the fact that it's a silly website where ~10 people go to discuss the upcoming increase in the cost of postage.

Well, sure, but did you know that they have started adding fluoride to stamp adhesive?  Did you?

42

^ 18

Re: Incorporation

tomc.

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST

none

The desire for legal review is not the reason for the hang up

Sorry for coming in on this thread late, but the desire for legal review HAS been the hang-up.

Both Rich and I have been trying to find a lawyer with expertise in non-profits to give our paperwork a boo for little cash - cash that would have had to come out of our pockets, since we owe an obligation to those who have until now donated under the assumption that donations would be used only for site maintenance.

A year ago some of us thought we should simply go ahead with incorporation and charitable status, but majority rules.

43

^ 42

Re: Incorporation

joshv.

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:55:18 AM EST

none

The desire for cheap or free legal review has resulted in a search that took time and produced no results.  Paying a lawyer a normal fee for legal review would take about a week.  If we don't have the funds, fine, we will just incorporate without review, but if we do have the funds, it's a prudent step.

14

^ 13

Re: Incorporation

wetkarma.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM EST

none

Well put.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

15

^ 13

Re: Incorporation

thefadd.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST

none

If my recollection serves, the delay set in when someone did speak with a lawyer who advised us that since we didn't have $5000 of income/expenses, it wasn't worth the time or filing fee to incorporate at that point.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

22

Random stats...

port1080.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:50:34 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant, informative, brilliant)

Amount of time it's taken to get 28 new accounts:

Time Period                      # of Days

12-22-07 to 2-13-08                53
6-13-07 to 12-21-07                191

# of New Accounts Per Month, last 6 Months

Month                         # of New Accounts

February (partial month)             9
January                                   14
December                                11
November                                 8
October                                    6
September                                2
August                                     2
July                                          4

Same monthly data, graphic representation:

█████████ (Feb)
██████████████ (Jan)
███████████ (Dec)
████████ (Nov)
██████ (Oct)
██ (Sept)
██ (Aug)
████ (July)

Also, let's not forget to check out our our two stats pages.  From them we can gather that we have roughly 50 to 60 people who actively comment on the site, and probably about 700 or 800 people a day reading the site.  We're probably viewed by roughly 7,000 to 9,000 different people a month, but it's impossible to tell how many of them stick around as active readers.

No matter how you look at it, things are definitely looking up.  It's most encouraging that we've maintained our pace on new accounts through February, even though Plastic has returned to life.  We're getting new readers, not just Plastic exiles that will only post here when carl forgets to feed the squirrels for a few days.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

26

^ 22

Re: Random stats...

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:09:30 AM EST

5.00 (funny, funny, informative)

No matter how you look at it, things are definitely looking up
Uh...yeah! Look at some of the search strings that have brought new visitors to the site.

From December:

"syvette wimberly"
"how much to tip the postman"
"syvette wimberley"
"how much to tip paper boy"
"anal camera 19"
"how much to tip for the holidays"
"bare boobs"
"anal camera"
"real mother daughter incest"
"has syvette wimberly ever done anal"
"penguin teapot"

From January:

"bush rebate"
"bigfoot on mars"
"anal camera"
"syvette wimberly"
"sasquach on mars"
"mars bigfoot"
"benazir bhutto"
"bare boobs"
"rodeo clown"
"humanoid on mars"

Now you know where to concentrate your marketing efforts. Someone should talk to MayorBob about doing a writeup entitled "Syvette Wimberly Tips the Sasquach Paperboy for Anal. On Mars."

29

^ 26

Re: Random stats...

thefadd.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

Syvette Wimberly Tips the Sasquach Paperboy for Anal. On Mars.

I think those are all Urkel's diary entries. Except Syvette. We can thank pO for her. We're actually one of the media leaders in hard hitting Wimberly news action follow up.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

30

^ 29

Re: Random stats...

port1080.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST

3.50 (astute, funny)

Hey now, I deserve credit for real mother daughter incest.  That one was all me.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

33

^ 26

Re: Random stats...

gerrymander.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST

3.00 (funny)

Within the last 14 days:

1188 comments were posted by 55 users:
[...]
1 percent of commenters wrote 12.63 percent of comments.

So who's the half person responsible for 1/8th of the posts in the past few weeks?

34

^ 33

Rounding up, I'd bet.

MayorBob.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:14:32 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

That would make it one person made 12.63% of the comments, which equates to 150 comments.  I do believe the grand prize has to go to novy.

 

Illegitimi non carborundum.

27

^ 26

Re: Random stats...

port1080.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:11:51 AM EST

none

"Syvette Wimberly Tips the Sasquach Paperboy for Anal. On Mars."

This is why we need a "scary" appellation!

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

28

^ 26

Sorry, not my forte.

MayorBob.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST

none

But it would seem to be a story custom-made for chlim from Plastic's salad days.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

47

^ 26

Re: Random stats...

Shy Elf.

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST

none

Keep up the good work, zyxwvutsr.

23

^ 22

Re: Random stats...

shane.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:15:24 AM EST

none

You're graph tricked me into viewing the source.  That sure is a neat thing you can do with plain text!

35

According to the poll

joshv.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:36:49 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Well, according to the poll, we should easily be able to raise $2,000,525.

36

^ 35

Obviously, those two down for a million.

MayorBob.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:38:58 PM EST

5.00 (funny, funny)

Were Zimbabweans.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

39

^ 35

Re: According to the poll

delete me.

Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:21:51 AM EST

5.00 (funny)

I did just donate $20 for a chance to be able to donate $74 million. So we're all good, if I'm lucky.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

38

Re: Trees and Things Fundraising Drive

skeeter1.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:10:10 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Perhaps setting up a LLC might be best.  I have no personal experience with it, but I do have a good friend who set up a LLC for his tree-removal service.  He's licensed and bonded, but if something were to go afoul, he's not going to be losing his house.  Just a thought.

there's only one way to find out...

1

technical question

wetkarma.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM EST

none

The donate link doesn't seem to have a simply paypal email address but instead using a paypal module which in turn requires me to disclose a shipping address.

All things considered I'd rather not do that (disclose a shipping address) - can someone just simply post the email address to send paypal donations to?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

2

^ 1

Re: technical question

shane.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:45:46 PM EST

none

You can send paypal donations to shane@webqualityhost.net

4

^ 2

Re: technical question

scoop.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST

5.00

I've also added another payment option that doesn't uses worldpay.com instead of paypal.  I've updated the contribute page to reflect this.

3

Re: Trees and Things Fundraising Drive

skeeter1.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST

none

Well, I sent a double-sawbuck (if you're old enough to remember the term) via PayPal.  I like this site and will do my little part to keep it going.

there's only one way to find out...

5

Fundraising progress thread

shane.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:12:03 PM EST

none

In this thread I'll keep you all up to date on the status of the fund raising - how much money is coming in.  If there is a run on webhosting orders (with the free ipod shuffle) I'll update this thread as well and let you know if there is a chance that I will run out of ipods.

So far we have received $145 in donations today.  Next update will be around 10:00PM PST.

6

^ 5

Someone Set us Up The Bomb!

pO157.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:23:25 PM EST

3.00 (funny)

Can't we just have a disenchanted 3rd party host a Ron Paul style money bomb for an arbitrary date in the future?

We can be trendy... right?

Spread it on!

7

^ 5

Re: Fundraising progress thread

thefadd.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:24:03 PM EST

3.00 (funny)

In the mean time, please enjoy this video.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

8

^ 5

accounting questions

wetkarma.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM EST

none

If I grok the numbers correctly, the annual run rate  for site maintainence is $600/year or $50/mth.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to use Yahoo Webhosting at $12/mth or $144 per year?  I acknowledge there is an issue of provider stability/quality but thats a serious cost differential and I suspect that the Yahoo brand would have quality uptime numbers.

Assuming there is excess cash (beyond annual budgetary needs) what are the spending priorities given that the writeup raises multiple expenditure options?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

9

^ 8

Re: accounting questions

shane.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST

5.00 (informative, informative, informative)

  1. Scoop doesn't run just anywhere - it requires all kinds of bizarre apache configuration directives and perl modules.  

  2. Scoop is on a machine that has only 2 other clients on it.  It practically has its own dedicated server.  Most webhosting accounts for $10-15/mo run 100's or 1000's of sites on the same server.

  3. If I moved tnt onto one of my regular servers I could probably lower the cost to $9.95/mo-$18.95/mo.   I'm pretty sure that the traffic levels would fit in the 9.95/mo plan - however I do not trust scoop enough to run it on my main servers.

11

^ 9

Re: accounting questions

thefadd.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST

none

Didn't we make a choice early on to go with the more expensive server? I could be remembering things wrong.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

16

^ 9

Re: accounting questions

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM EST

none

So why was it so slow this morning?

17

^ 16

Re: accounting questions

shane.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:57:49 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

Apache processes shot up from about 20 to about 180 rather suddenly, due to a burst of traffic mostly from one IP address to one of the other sites on the server.  I still have to do more research around this.

20

^ 8

Re: accounting questions

pO157.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:05:38 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

I wouldn't risk it with a $12 a month server. We all know what happened to Gigolo Joe's website ($15/mo, ftw!) when it counted, and I think there is actually more demand on the Innertubes for TnT than virtual joementum.

Then again, perhaps one of the 73 other sites on Joe's server was transferring terrabytes of porn. That would be hot.

Spread it on!

10

^ 8

Re: accounting questions

port1080.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:59:02 PM EST

4.00 (informative, astute)

Wouldn't it be cheaper to use Yahoo Webhosting at $12/mth or $144 per year? I acknowledge there is an issue of provider stability/quality but thats a serious cost differential and I suspect that the Yahoo brand would have quality uptime numbers.

We can't use a cheap hosting provider because the Scoop code that the site runs on requires a lot more resources than of the cheaper providers give you. There's no way a host like Godaddy or Yahoo or what have you would even allow you to install Scoop on a site hosted through one of their basic accounts. Just serving up pre-generated web pages requires very little processing power - but Scoop requires the server to actually generate new pages, run the database, etc. For a site like this you need what's called "dedicated hosting", and $50 a month is pretty reasonable for that (especially when you take stability into account - there are a lot of lower cost operators, but they've been known to have outage issues).

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

12

^ 10

Re: accounting questions

wetkarma.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

And here I was hoping for an explanation involving terabytes of amateur porn.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

21

^ 5

Re: Fundraising progress thread

shane.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:48:24 PM EST

none

We are currently at 382.92 - the last donation came in at about 5:20PM PST.  Thanks to those that donated already!  

Is anyone else out there?  Anyone?  Hello hello?

37

^ 21

Re: Fundraising progress thread

shane.

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:51:23 PM EST

3.00 (informative)

Now we are upto 407.92

41

^ 37

Re: Fundraising progress thread

shane.

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

Now: 437.92

40

^ 37

Re: Fundraising progress thread

Coelacanth.

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:45:34 AM EST

3.50 (informative)

I'm in.  Thanks, shane (and others) for your hard work on the site.

49

^ 40

Re: Fundraising progress thread

pO157.

Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:14:07 AM EST

none

Thanks, shane (and others) for your hard work on the site.

Ditto. :)

Spread it on!

This story: 49 comments (14 from subqueue)
Post a Comment