Is there a reason the P&L is Jan 1-Feb 20 instead of a month as per usual? It makes it hard to compare.

Also are staff not being paid?
posted by warriorqueen at 4:44 PM on February 20 [4 favorites]

It is interesting that Metafilter’s “fiscal month” of January is Jan 1 to Feb 20. It seems there are (hopefully!!!) double hosting charges, but (oddly!) almost no contractor payments.
posted by snofoam at 4:45 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]

Also, it looks like monthly contributions are down by more than 50%? Personal opinion, but it might make sense to look at the P&L and comment on any really big changes when posting it.
posted by snofoam at 4:50 PM on February 20 [6 favorites]

In the P&L folder, why is there an updated one for December 2024 that shows contribution of $150k for that month instead of the $13k that was shown in the version posted last month?
posted by snofoam at 4:57 PM on February 20 [1 favorite]

... whether to keep the MetaTalk queue. You’re welcome to join in!
Keep in mind, though, that the moderators have already decided the MeTa queue will remain.

There are obvious weird things about the P&L that others have already mentioned, not the least of which is the unusual period it covers. These are so obvious that they should have been addressed in the update to avoid everything in the thread being about those glaring issues.
posted by dg at 5:15 PM on February 20 [5 favorites]

Loup will be back in the in about 12 hours and can deal with the P&L questions. But otherwise, staff was paid.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:29 PM on February 20 [1 favorite]

These items from the December 2024 site update:

- The MeFi Cookbook is roughly at 80%, waiting on the final edits to be completed.

- Frimble is working on a simple moderation log for the current site

Thyme has finished edits to all pending board minutes. Pending minutes for meetings #23-27 will be finalized and approved for publishing this Saturday at the Board meeting. They should be posted within the next week or so once the request is sent over to frimble.

Any of those still happening?

How about the Twitter redirect?
posted by Diskeater at 5:41 PM on February 20 [12 favorites]

Good questions overall, I'll keep bugging people about the very simple moderation log and I've tagged those who can answer questions about the other stuff. They'll chime in as soon as they can.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:49 PM on February 20

Did MeFi get a visit from DOGE or something? Contractor/consulting fees were cut by 93%, from $17,617 last year to $1,227 this year. That seems...unlikely.
posted by Bugbread at 8:19 PM on February 20 [1 favorite]

December also had low contracting fees, with the apparent reason being those were being paid by the foundation. So it seems like we're missing part of the financials, we're only getting the LCC but we need the LLC and the foundation or something like that. Not entirely clear to me.

Having complete financials is important, as revenue appears to be dropping fairly quickly (down 38% year over year). If staff costs are at the same level as they were in 2024, then MetaFilter appears to be running a significant deficit currently.

Can we get a balance sheet also? It would be helpful as well to see the complete financials for just January rather than the weird Jan 1 - Feb 20 report.
posted by ssg at 8:51 PM on February 20 [7 favorites]

Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.
posted by Bugbread at 8:54 PM on February 20

Yeah, this is just a reporting artifact, caused in part by switching banks after a comically terrible experience with the first one. It also doesn't reflect some significant AWS savings identified recently by Frayed Knot, with potentially more to come.

Frimble currently has several to-do's on their plate (the AWS changes, modlog, Twitter redirect, scripting updates, plus some bugfixes). They're available part-time each week, so it's a matter of prioritizing, but nothing's been dropped (apart from the comment-hiding experiment, temporarily, for accessibility reasons). The new site is designed to be more open to code contributions and more streamlined tinkering, which should improve things across the board. The demo site is already soft-launched and should be ready for more wider testing soon!
posted by Rhaomi at 9:14 PM on February 20

Posting incomplete financials reveals the mismanagement of site, but makes it impossible to infer anything about the financial state of the site, so it is of limited usefulness.
posted by snofoam at 12:07 AM on February 21 [12 favorites]

"the food here is terrible! and the portions are so small!"
posted by gorbichov at 6:10 AM on February 21 [4 favorites]

"the food here is terrible! and the portions are so small!"

All my personal opinion:

The members are donating their money to the site to see the site survive. Twice the people running the site have come to the members to say basically "we're almost out of money, can you help?" and twice, the second time under the really incredible efforts of the Steering Committee, members have stepped up with their time and wallets to contribute.

In return some vocal members have asked for regular basic financial reports that are a normal part of businesses and non-profits. Monthly is a bit less regular for non-profits, but that is in my mind more tied to the fact that twice the site has almost run out of funds abruptly (and I was involved in that second one on the transition team that was trying to get financial information, and it was an interesting insight into the then-lack of fiscal planning) and is something that might normalize after some years of good stewardship.

The lack of thought or narrative about it -- it almost seems like no one actually read the thing -- does not give me confidence in the mod team's ability to understand that:

- people ask because they care
- people ask because they want to know if they should donate or should advocate for others to donate
- people ask because they don't want MF to vanish into the void in a few months
- I asked because if staff were not being paid, that is an immediate issue for me (I don't believe the board would actually let this happen, but if you don't ask when you see a number like that, you are just not behaving responsibility in my opinion, on the off chance that something's gone horribly wrong)
- producing random reporting periods negates year-over-year and month-over-month analysis which is part of fiscal responsibility?

People don't want a PDF they can just confirm is there and walk away; they want to know if the site is financially okay. If there are big discrepancies on it it would be great to explain that; it would also be great to keep the months consistent which is literally selecting the right dates on the interface.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:26 AM on February 21 [50 favorites]

Looking forward to BIPOC minutes…
posted by Vatnesine at 8:04 AM on February 21 [11 favorites]

Looking forward to BIPOC minutes

Since MiraK stepped down is the BIPOC board back to being 50% staff?
posted by phunniemee at 8:22 AM on February 21 [5 favorites]

I assume that will be covered in the minutes!
posted by Vatnesine at 9:25 AM on February 21 [2 favorites]

Are we still in the window of loup being available to comment on the financials?

Who is supposed to update us on the BIPOC minutes and will they address MiraK's comments in the other thread about the board being a sham?
posted by donnagirl at 9:58 AM on February 21 [6 favorites]

At this point, it seems like the best course of action for the BIPOC board would be to put it on hiatus until the elected MetaFilter board is in place and can look at revitalizing it or reconsider how to fill this need. If the board is unable to output even meeting minutes for an entire year, despite including multiple paid staff members, the board clearly is not able to take action in a concrete way (which MiraK has confirmed on exiting the board).

Sometimes if something clearly isn't working, calling it is the right thing to do so that something more functional can take its place in the future.
posted by ssg at 10:45 AM on February 21 [14 favorites]

I was really hoping to work with the BIPOC committee on documenting moderation issues related to its work (and the need for that work) and seeking their advice, as well as providing support for issues and concerns they had identified, and MiraK's comment was very discouraging.

I would probably have approached the moderation committee work differently, particularly in terms of recruiting, if I had been aware that was where things stood.

Which is to say I agree with ssg, even though it feels like the failure it is.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:16 AM on February 21 [7 favorites]

Loup, the updated December financials now show Contribution of roughly $148,000. Is that correct? What does this represent?
posted by ssg at 11:23 AM on February 21 [1 favorite]

This includes all regular contributions plus a wire of $132,000.00 which is the donation of MeFi LLC's money to the Foundation.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:34 AM on February 21

Thanks loup, so are these financial reports for the Foundation, the LLC or both combined? They say MetaFilter LLC at the top, but if the transfer was from the LLC to the Foundation, it wouldn't show up as a positive amount on the LLC's report.
posted by ssg at 11:42 AM on February 21 [2 favorites]

These are both combined (the Foundation now owns all of the LLC's assets). They were recorded as a transfer on the LLC's bank and as a donation for the Foundation. Thank you for pointing out that the headers still mention the LLC, I'll fix that.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:46 AM on February 21

A brief history of the BIPOC minutes update saga -

March 2024: “Meeting #23 editing is underway and will be reviewed at the next board meeting.”
April 2024: “Pending items need clarification before publishing #23. Meeting #24 editing is underway.”
May 2024: “#23, #24, and #25 are in the editing process. Everything should be up to date by the end of the month.”
July 2024: “We’ll resume meetings and catch up on outstanding notes as soon as possible.”
September 2024: “We’ll report back on a plan to get back on track.”
October 2024: Same sentence as September.
November 2024: “We’re back to a regular cadence and have added placeholders for the missing minutes.”
December 2024: “Minutes #23-27 are finished. They should be posted within the next week or so.”
January 2025: “All pending minutes were updated but still need board approval. More to come!”

I don't care about the meeting minutes. I care that the staff doesn't care.

Same with the cookbook. I don't care that it's late. I care that the staff doesn't care.

Same with the simple moderation log. I kind of care that there isn't one. I do care that the staff doesn't care.
posted by Diskeater at 11:54 AM on February 21 [34 favorites]

So if the financials are combined, that $132k should not be recorded as net income, because it was just an internal transfer. So December's net income of $122k was in fact a net loss of $10k, if I understand correctly.

Does the $6k one-time contribution in January represent a real donation or is that also a transfer of assets?
posted by ssg at 11:54 AM on February 21 [5 favorites]

And has anyone done an analysis of how long MetaFilter can continue financially as things stand currently? Is so, can it be shared? If not, can we get a balance sheet (or just an bank balance if that's not available) so we can do some back of the envelope math here?
posted by ssg at 11:57 AM on February 21 [4 favorites]

Does the $6k one-time contribution in January represent a real donation or is that also a transfer of assets?

Yes, its 100% one time contributions, but most of it comes from last year's GoFundMe campaign.

And has anyone done an analysis of how long MetaFilter can continue financially as things stand currently? Is so, can it be shared? If not, can we get a balance sheet (or just an bank balance if that's not available) so we can do some back of the envelope math here?

Yes, at least for the LLC, Jessamyn and would look at expenses vs revenue each month since before the LLC was created and I have had different operating models in case we can't sustain the site with the current operating costs. I'll pull and share the balance sheet on Monday and share it.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:32 PM on February 21

My back of envelope math says payroll alone will burn thru those funds in less than six months
posted by donnagirl at 12:33 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

So much financial shenanigans! I have never done a gofundme, but it seems odd that those donations would be arriving 4-6 months after the donations were made. Maybe so they could be transferred directly to the nonprofit? Maybe someone knows.

Anyhow, if the new versions of the P&L are correct, then the monthly donations have dropped by half from Jan 2024 to Jan 2025. This seems significant and worrisome.

I’m working with the board to solve these hiccups for the upcoming months.

Have you tried drinking a glass of water upside down?
posted by snofoam at 1:31 PM on February 21 [4 favorites]

A big concern is that regular contributions are dropping month to month as well:

Jan 2025: 10,722.74
Dec 2024: 13,783.07
Nov 2024: 16,167.87
Oct 2024: 17,050.77
posted by warriorqueen at 1:33 PM on February 21 [6 favorites]

A big concern is that regular contributions are dropping month to month as well

They're just hiccuping down.
posted by snofoam at 1:37 PM on February 21 [2 favorites]

I have done a quick analysis of the financial situation looking forward, based on the data we have available in the P&L reports for the last six months and assuming MetaFilter started 2025 with $132,000 in the bank based on the discussion here.

If we assume that the downward trends in advertising revenue and monthly donations continue, while one-time donations, contractor costs, hosting and other costs remain at average levels, then we will have spent our entire $132,000 just over one year from today.

Here is a spreadsheet. Welcome feedback on this, I may well have missed something or not understood the financials.

Some factors that might change this calculation is if staff costs change (maybe web development costs will go down once the new site is up) and of course if trends in donations or advertising revenue change. I understand hosting costs may go down somewhat in the future, but that's a relatively small factor.

Fundamentally, we are looking at a loss of about $10,000 per month on average over the next year. That's not sustainable. I think we need some significant changes — and sooner rather than later, so we can retain a significant reserve in the bank to make sure MetaFilter is able to weather future storms. We either need to increase revenue by about $10,000 per month or decrease costs by about $10,000 per month or some combination of the two.
posted by ssg at 2:13 PM on February 21 [7 favorites]

Loup, can you confirm if it is correct that monthly contributions have dropped to just $10,773 in January? That's a drastic drop if it is real.
posted by ssg at 2:15 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

Given how these threads go, with people looking closely at any information shared, I am astonished that the staff decided to release such a sloppy and inscrutable report. And now they are asking the community to wait for clarification of each point. If I did this at my job, I would be mortified-- once. I would never do it again because I would be afraid to look like I didn't care or didn't know what I was doing.
posted by CtrlAltD at 2:23 PM on February 21 [20 favorites]

Second time in 5 minutes I'll be making a joke about selling feet pics to keep Metafilter afloat.
posted by phunniemee at 2:24 PM on February 21 [6 favorites]

site's closed for the weekend, everyone. come back on monday.
posted by glonous keming at 2:51 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

Second time in 5 minutes I'll be making a joke about selling feet pics to keep Metafilter afloat.

I will post feet pics until someone pays me enough to stop, let's see who raises more money
posted by ginger.beef at 5:29 PM on February 21 [4 favorites]

I don't have a fancy accounting degree, but recurring contributions being at 62% of what they were four months prior seems bad.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:36 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

ssg: "Fundamentally, we are looking at a loss of about $10,000 per month on average over the next year."

I ran this by our treasurer (1adam12) and this figure is not accurate at all. I'd wait on him or loup fill in the particulars, but the site is *not* bleeding $10k a month, and in addition to not seeing a significant loss of income, we've actually realized a large reduction in monthly costs (which is not yet reflected in this report). What you're seeing are temporary reporting mismatches due to a combination of payment timings around the holidays and our having to change banks recently. Our new provider is much easier to work with, and these reports should be more straightforward in the future as a result.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:35 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

Thanks for your note.

Could you provide some particulars about the "large reduction in monthly costs"?
posted by Violet Blue at 6:53 PM on February 21

There was an overzealous backup setting in AWS that was backing up too frequently and storing it in a suboptimal storage tier for too long. The site might be all text (apart from MeFi Music and other miscellaneous assets), but multiply that by hundreds of thousands of threads and millions of comments across 25+ years and it adds up, to the tune of several thousand dollars per month. (Special thanks again to Frayed Knot for helping to flag this issue!)
posted by Rhaomi at 7:06 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

Ssg made a forward-looking spreadsheet, so I've made a backward-looking spreadsheet. I've put all the P/L stuff in a single spreadsheet for anyone who's interested. Here's the link.

There are six sheets:
* Raw: The raw data
* Rollin' 2: Because there have been a few cases of "We paid X one month ahead of time" or "We paid X one month late," I made a two-month rolling average to smooth those bumps out
* Rollin' 3: Three month rolling average for even greater smoooothness
* Raw Chart: Chart of monthly net income from Raw sheet
* Rollin' 2 Chart: Chart of two-month rolling average net income from the Rollin' 2 sheet
* Rollin' 3 Chart: Chart of three-month rolling average net income from the Rollin' 2 sheet

The only thing I tweaked is that I removed the $132,000 transfer from the LLC to the Foundation, because I don't think any of us would really consider that "income," just moving savings already in the bank from one part of MeFi to another part of MeFi.
posted by Bugbread at 7:13 PM on February 21 [9 favorites]

I'd wait on him or loup fill in the particulars, but the site is *not* bleeding $10k a month, and in addition to not seeing a significant loss of income, we've actually realized a large reduction in monthly costs (which is not yet reflected in this report).

Just to be clear, I have not suggested the site is currently bleeding $10k per month. What I've said is if the trends over the last six months with declining revenue from donations and advertising continue, while costs stay the same, we can expect to lose about $10k per month on average over the next year. Predicting future trends is of course very difficult and all I've done is a quick estimate based on the last six months. I think if I were to include a different time range, the results would be somewhat different, but still negative.

Looking not just at the last six months, but also the data that Bugbread has helpfully compiled, I do see a significant downward trend in revenue (at least since the big fundraiser in 2023).

Reducing costs for AWS backups certainly helps! I've always wondered why it cost such an incredibly large amount to host something as relatively simple as MetaFilter.

Once MetaFilter becomes a 501(c)(3), we should also be able to get $1000 per year in AWS credits for non-profits, as well as Google Workspace for free (not much, but it's more than nothing).

What you're seeing are temporary reporting mismatches due to a combination of payment timings around the holidays and our having to change banks recently. Our new provider is much easier to work with, and these reports should be more straightforward in the future as a result.

I'm glad to hear the banking situation is improving, but I'm confused as to how changing banks prevents MetaFilter from accurately accounting for spending and revenue. Usually, bookkeeping is based on spending and revenue directly, which is then reconciled against bank statements. You shouldn't even need to look at your bank account at all to know where you stand!

But it sounds like MetaFilter is doing something quite different. I wonder if that might be the fundamental reason the monthly P&L reports have been kind of all over the place and often needing revisions.
posted by ssg at 8:06 PM on February 21 [10 favorites]

(Late typo correction: "Rollin' 3 Chart: Chart of three-month rolling average net income from the Rollin' 2 sheet" should be "Rollin' 3 Chart: Chart of three-month rolling average net income from the Rollin' 3 sheet")
posted by Bugbread at 9:16 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

I spoke with the community member who is working on MeFi Cookbook a few weeks ago and they mentioned they were dealing with a lot IRL, so I’ve been avoiding putting extra pressure on them. Please be patient

happy to be patient &, also, if i can help out please feel free to memail me :)
posted by HearHere at 10:43 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

The site is fine! It just looks worrisome because the reporting we are sharing with you is so inaccurate!
posted by snofoam at 1:36 AM on February 22 [13 favorites]

I’m relieved recurring donations are not going down since they are the bulk of the revenue and the drop is more than the total web hosting bill (and because as a measure of engagement that would be an alarming signal.) I was going to suggest that although Ask and the site continues to trend downwards in active users year over year (Jan to Jan comparison) the blue held steady and Fanfare increased; there’s also been a slight increase in new members*- I’m guessing that relates to These Times. If contributions were down I’d suggest that there’s possibly a window to stop that if more users are around.

I think I’m going to stop looking at this point, so I hope things go okay.

* I’m not sure if the spam bots that have been getting through the signup — I’m still not sure how that works; is it that they can post before payment is checked? — are counted in the new members count or not. I’ve never really noticed them before but they came up in the AI thread. No idea if there are more fake accounts or not.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:01 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account

Well now you got me curious.
posted by phunniemee at 4:51 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

because I can read for context I suspect phunniemee wants to hear about the stories spammers tell to get free accounts. Not totally sure why she would restate the question?
posted by sagc at 5:16 AM on February 22 [11 favorites]

Because I deal with a lot of people that have different communication styles, I usually doublecheck what they're asking about or if they're actually asking anything. From there they can choose to clarify so we can have a conversation or they can get the information they want.

But overall, the spammers requesting free accounts usually say they have no money or can't afford the fee, then mention they're trying to grow their business and how the their product/knowledge could benefit MeFi.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:09 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]

say they have no money or can't afford the fee, then mention they're trying to grow their business and how the their product/knowledge could benefit MeFi

So to be clear that I am asking something, can you please clarify that this is a plea that's adjudicated legitimate and let through the free account creation process?
posted by phunniemee at 6:15 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

No, people who want to join MeFi to grow their business are denied free account
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:41 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Couple foundation-related questions —
The Dec update said:
- MetaFilter LLC has been formally donated to MetaFilter Community Foundation. We are working with them to have a smooth transition and the Foundation will make an official announcement in the coming days.

The Jan update said:
The board met with staff today to discuss efforts to organize volunteer oversight. An update on recent MetaFilter Community Foundation (MCF) work is coming by the end of the month regarding this project, recent banking changes, and progress on setting up a voting platform for members.

Did either of these posts from the foundation happen? If not, when can we expect to hear an update from the board or other foundation representatives?

Are contributions going to the LLC still and then being transferred to the foundation or are they now going directly to the foundation?
Thanks.
posted by ohneat at 6:44 AM on February 22 [6 favorites]

Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account

I am curious what is a good story that gets a spammer a free account.
posted by phunniemee at 8:04 AM on February 22 [5 favorites]

I am also curious as I don't recall one that got a spammer a free account.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:49 AM on February 22

Brandon, please, what is the context by which this thing that you said happens is happening?

This thing that you said:

Some spammers absolutely DO pay the $5, yes, but that's rare. Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post.

The thing I am curious about are the circumstances that happened in real life that would cause you to say those sentences that you said in the way that you said them.

This started as my genuine curiosity about how spammers work their way around the signup fee and now I feel insane.
posted by phunniemee at 8:57 AM on February 22 [36 favorites]

that is a side effect of the house non-communication style, yes.
posted by sagc at 9:03 AM on February 22 [8 favorites]

This is an incredible exchange.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:09 AM on February 22 [12 favorites]

Maybe our next fundraiser could be t-shirts that say "I financially supported MeFi for years and all I got was gaslit."
posted by phunniemee at 9:10 AM on February 22 [15 favorites]

YOUR CORN JUST GOT CREAMED
posted by ginger.beef at 9:17 AM on February 22 [10 favorites]

I'm pretty sure those shirts were already sold for a fundraiser a year or two ago. Shame you missed out.
posted by Diskeater at 9:18 AM on February 22 [11 favorites]

Gently, there is no creamed corn.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:18 AM on February 22 [6 favorites]

Repeated for emphasis:

The site is fine! It just looks worrisome because the reporting we are sharing with you is so inaccurate!

Arrrrgh guys. I legit don’t understand what’s happening behind the scenes; it actively looks like nothing.
posted by samthemander at 9:18 AM on February 22 [8 favorites]

But overall I'd say there does seem to be an uptick in new signups, so that's good!

Is there?
posted by fight or flight at 9:32 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Well, in the sense that we haven't hit 30 new signups/mo since last February, I... guess?

I'm not a numbers talker, but I don't think $150 in new signup fees quite offsets the precipitous decline in recurring donations.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:45 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]

MetaComms: a tragicomedy in one act

BB: sometimes spammers tell good stories, get a free account, and then we find out they are spammers
ph: I would like to hear those stories
BB: Sometimes they say they have a product or service that would be good for MeFi
ph: That gets them a free account???
BB: no it does not
ph: so what's an example if when a spammer told a story and got an account
BB: that has never happened; why would you think that

And, scene.
posted by donnagirl at 9:50 AM on February 22 [43 favorites]

Hopefully the next generation of moderation agents will be able to retain state over multiple interactions, allowing longer conversations without losing context.
posted by snofoam at 9:56 AM on February 22 [22 favorites]

ChatGPT does context better than this. And it's free.
posted by CtrlAltD at 10:02 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

I'll spare yall the copy/paste, but I just had a more comprehensible conversation with ChatGPT about good spammer stories.

If the financial management is anything like the communication and deadline adherence, I have grave concerns about the site, and will repeat myself in saying that there needs to be a manager in charge of staff, KPI tracking, and finances. Every month the basic "state of the site" seems to be wishy-washy for some reason or another. This isn't normal for any business.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 10:05 AM on February 22 [7 favorites]

This thing that you said:
Some spammers absolutely DO pay the $5, yes, but that's rare. Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post.

The thing I am curious about are the circumstances that happened in real life that would cause you to say those sentences that you said in the way that you said them.

Fair enough! I was talking about two different types of spammers, but after double checking just now, realized I was conflating the two, so apologies for that. Plus, it's upon reflection, decided it's best just to drop the issue/derail/story.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:21 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

"A certain percentage of signups are spammers with a good story."

"What percent is that?"

"Zero"

"..."

"Zero is a percent!"
posted by Diskeater at 10:23 AM on February 22 [5 favorites]

It's gotta be performance art at this point right?
posted by bowmaniac at 10:24 AM on February 22 [4 favorites]

i take back what i said months ago about wanting the mods to interact more with the community
posted by glonous keming at 10:28 AM on February 22 [12 favorites]

Brandon, I hope you're taking the above as good-natured ribbing. But that being said, slow down and reread comments you're making with the mod hat on to make sure they're clear before posting. That is a part of good writing, and good writing is a big part of effective moderation on a text-based site.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:45 AM on February 22 [16 favorites]

Thanks for compiling these, Diskeater and ohneat. The constant empty promises are what break community trust and incidentally, much like the circular conversation upthread, drive me completely up the wall.
posted by Threeve at 11:04 AM on February 22 [7 favorites]

Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post.

So, just to clarify, this sentence, made as part of an official, styled in a special box, mod comment, was just completely untrue?

(A glitch in the modtrix?)
posted by snofoam at 11:24 AM on February 22 [12 favorites]

A storytelling spammer was in the closet making comments and I saw one of the comments and the comment looked at me!
posted by snofoam at 11:48 AM on February 22 [9 favorites]

“Fair enough!” is such dismissive bullshit. At least admit that you did a completely insane thing. Like, what the fuck, man? They’re paying you for this service! Don’t just make shit up and then act like there was a genuine misconception that you would rather not discuss. Own your fuckups.
posted by bowbeacon at 12:02 PM on February 22 [11 favorites]

the really neat thing about gaslighting someone is its fractal recursion. while you're gaslighting them about the original thing you also gaslight them about gaslighting them.
posted by glonous keming at 12:04 PM on February 22 [7 favorites]

So, like, no one is going to come in with the Chief Wiggum line? Won't somebody think of the Simpsons-obsessed Gen Xers?!?!?

In Metafilter's heyday, there would have been people jinxing each other by immediately posting "The comment looked at you?" What is even the point anymore?
posted by snofoam at 12:08 PM on February 22 [5 favorites]

Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
posted by Diskeater at 12:12 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Are there any Wikipedia editors around who could edit the the Metafilter entry to reflect the non-profit status and any other recent changes that seem significant enough to warrant inclusion?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:40 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Is it possible for someone in site leadership to give an *accurate* answer to the question about "Contractors/Consulting" line item costs for both December and January? Thank you in advance.

The P&L for December listed contractor/consulting costs for the month as $8,950, which was about half of the usual monthly cost, but as noted above loup said it was not accurate since "December payroll came from the Foundation's bank in the beginning of January (we timed the transfer of funds, expenses, payments so that the LLC wouldn't have any transactions in 2025)."

Now, a month later in January's P&L, we're still seeing an even more absurdly low and obviously inaccurate "Contractors/Consulting" line item, $1,227.50, which is again being explained as a "reporting artifact" related to switching banks. Why are members not being shown accurate information about the amount the site is paying its staff each month?

Posting that P&L with those obvious errors is hugely disrespectful to the community, and someone should apologize and clarify the site's payroll costs asap.
posted by catspajamas at 12:50 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]

Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post.

So, just to clarify, this sentence, made as part of an official, styled in a special box, mod comment, was just completely untrue?

(A glitch in the modtrix?)

Yes, I did conflate a couple of different things and it was a mistake on my part.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:03 PM on February 22

catspajamas, the December P&L has now been updated to show $26,800 in contractors costs for December. So I guess the December payroll did in fact happen in December after all (or the P&L has been retconned so that it appears to have happened in December). Confusingly, there are now two December P&L reports in the folder, which are wildly different from one another.

The original Jan 1 - Feb 20 report that was included in this post at the start did show a normal contractors amount, so I think that happened in early Feb for Jan. Which I think means the staff is being paid as usual.

It would really help for this to be explained in the post instead of folks having to figure it out themselves in the thread.
posted by ssg at 1:05 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]

it's an accountability partner, not an accountingbility partner
posted by phunniemee at 1:11 PM on February 22 [15 favorites]

Thanks, ssg, but so much of this is still clear as mud.

The original Jan 1 - Feb 20 report that was included in this post at the start did show a normal contractors amount, so I think that happened in early Feb for Jan.

How does that relate to the current $1,227.50 currently listed for payroll costs in January?
posted by catspajamas at 1:13 PM on February 22

Were the conflated things truth and untruth?

Like presumably this supposedly reoccurring thing that never ever happened even once is made-up in the way that fun stories are sometimes made-up, but definitely, totally, for sure not made-up in the way that a lie told for no clear reason (except maybe to make the modding job sound slightly more interesting/challenging? but really?) is made-up. Because, to be honest, it would be a little weird if a paid mod/site representative was just making up lies for no reason in the thread where they are also supposed to be telling people the actual truth about the status and wellbeing of the site.
posted by snofoam at 1:22 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]

loup, here's a suggestion for a example text in the original post could avoid a lot of the questions and comments in the thread:

Notes on the P&L: Monthly contributions are down significantly in January to $10,700 from $16,100 in December because ... (this one we don't know yet). One time contributions of $6000 are much more than previous months because we deposited nearly $6000 from the GoFundMe that we ran in the summer and fall. We paid our contractors for January in early February, for a total of $2X,000, but this won't show up until February's report.

Overall, this means MetaFilter spent about $X,000 more than we took in for January once we include contractors (I believe this is between $5000 and $10,000). In order to reduce costs, we've found a way to cut down our AWS bill by getting rid of overzealous backups. We also...
posted by ssg at 1:22 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]

Yes, I did conflate a couple of different things and it was a mistake on my part.

What things did you conflate?
What was the mistake?
What were you trying to say?

Can you for once just stop hemming and hawing and obstructing and spinning and just give a compete open and forthright answer? Please? Just once?
posted by bowmaniac at 1:24 PM on February 22 [8 favorites]

It's a real "they're just some fellas I do car pranks with" explanation.
posted by snofoam at 1:27 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]

He's a troll. All his interactions here make sense under that lens.
posted by donnagirl at 1:46 PM on February 22 [6 favorites]

Are we still prefacing questions we would like answers to with "Please answer"? If so:

Please answer: What were the two types of spammers you were conflating?
posted by Bugbread at 2:14 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

You have to make it a hashtag: #pleaseanswer
posted by umber vowel at 2:16 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]

Ah, thanks.

#pleaseanswer
What were the two types of spammers you were conflating?
posted by Bugbread at 2:32 PM on February 22

[quote] What were the two types of spammers you were conflating?


I'm pretty sure the answer is "Yes! Both types!"
posted by CtrlAltD at 2:40 PM on February 22

please, I have a submission for the cookbook
posted by phunniemee at 2:42 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]

What things did you conflate?
What was the mistake?
What were you trying to say?

Clearly the mistake was saying anything because that I bungled the hell out of that!

But yeah, there are sometimes interesting stories or things that spammers say, but at this point it would be best not to share them, for trust concerns. So apologies for the derail and all, totally my fault.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:45 PM on February 22

do mods sometimes believe spammer stories? are they eagle-eyed and amused by obvious lies? Who knows!
posted by sagc at 3:00 PM on February 22

"But yeah, there are sometimes interesting stories or things that spammers say, but at this point it would be best not to share them, for trust concerns."

I cannot imagine any response that would further lower the level of trust regarding this spammer discussion.

If you'd given out a free account due to a story, and then you shared that story, and the story was really obviously fake, then, sure, people would be like "Wait, you fell for that?!" and they'd lose trust in the mods.

But you literally said that "I am also curious as I don't recall one that got a spammer a free account." So no matter how good or how bad the story, you've said that y'all didn't fall for it. So how on earth could you lose trust for not falling for a lie?

But, again, those weren't bowmaniac's questions in the first place. And they're not my question.

Phunniemee asked you to share the stories of what the spammers say.
You've indicated that you're not going to answer that question.

Bowmaniac asked you what things you conflated.
Bowmaniac asked you what the mistake was.
Bowmaniac asked you what you were trying to say.
I asked you what the two types of spammers are.

None of those are requests for interesting stories or things that spammers say, so if trust concerns prevent you from providing anecdotes, that's still fine, you can still answer these other questions.
posted by Bugbread at 3:07 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]

There's also the original question, which was never given a coherent answer, about whether spammers are making it all the way through the signup process and paying their $5 for the brief privilege.

(I'd guess the answer is that yes, any spammer who makes a spam comment/post has indeed paid $5. And I guess what Brandon must have been getting at was that most spammers/spambots don't make it that far [though I'd assume it's because they stall out when they don't pay], and that those outnumber the ones that do. And then I guess some amount of would-be spammers apparently try asking for free accounts and I guess they're mostly caught out at that point, but...who knows.)

That's my bb-whispering for the day. This was a tough one.

(Oh, another unanswered part of the question was about whether user signup stats include spam accounts. What I recall from ages ago is that they do include spam accounts that make it through the whole process [and pay], but don't include spam/bot/curious-almost-user accounts that stall out on the payment step [though those do all get assigned a user number]. But it would be good to know this for sure!)

Monthly contributions are down significantly in January to $10,700 from $16,100 in December because[...]

This is the most pressing question. That one-time contributions suddenly rose by around (but not quite) the same amount makes it seem likely to be a careless-accounting or account-switchover artifact, but Loup or someone on the board really should chime in on this. (Did all recurring contributions automatically/smoothly make it through the transfer from LLC to foundation? If any month actually had that many cancelled donations, I wouldn't think it would have been this January. Likewise for a sudden outburst of one-time donations.)
posted by nobody at 4:27 PM on February 22

Without sharing the contents of an email i was sent by a mod, since that's against the rules: i can confirm that when i reported the obvious AI disagreebot the other day, i was told that the bot hadn't paid the $5 because they had cited one of the available reasons for waiving the fee.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:28 PM on February 22 [20 favorites]

Incredible.
posted by bowbeacon at 4:49 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

I know there's a lot on frimble's plate right now but could we please embed YaketySax.mp3 to autoplay when this page is open thank you.
posted by phunniemee at 4:56 PM on February 22 [15 favorites]

There's also the original question, which was never given a coherent answer, about whether spammers are making it all the way through the signup process and paying their $5 for the brief privilege

I thought it was answered here, aka some spammers actually do sign up for an account and then proceed to post spam. Usually in the form of content that points directly to their business. But those are rare. Like one every 1-3 months.

Otherwise, some of y'all seem worried about my mistake, as if you think something is being hidden, then accidently revealed with my comment and now y'all really want to know the truth, is that it? If so, what do y'all suspect is going on?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:39 PM on February 22

I can't speak for anyone else, but my question was just the surface level question.

You said that spammers sometimes tell a good story and get in without paying the $5.
Then you said that spammers don't sometimes tell a good story and get in without paying the $5, and the reason for these two contradictory statements is that you were mixing up two kinds of spammers.

I thought about it for a while, but I can't think of how you could mix up two types of spammers and come to the conclusion that spammers sometimes tell a good story and get in without paying the $5.

I don't think that's a tip of the iceberg thing, or the unraveling of a conspiracy, or nefarious doings, or anything else. And I'm not upset that you made a mistake. I mean, obviously I'm not happy you made a mistake, I'm just really neutral about it.

I just can't figure out how mixing up two kinds of spammers could lead to that statement. I'm asking sheerly out of intense curiosity, not because I'm trying to pillory you or because I'm doing some kind of investigative journalism aiming at a deeper truth.

(Completely unrelated: Firefox's built-in spell checker flags "sheerly" as incorrectly spelled. Is it that rare of a word? I thought it was super-common)
posted by Bugbread at 5:54 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]

A Compilation of Yarns Both Peculiar and At Times Erotic, and the Dastardly Spammers Who Spun Them, by Brandon Blatcher Esq.

we'll wait

I'll ghostwrite the erotic bits if needed, I'm fresh off a seminar by Bobby Fingers
posted by ginger.beef at 6:03 PM on February 22 [6 favorites]

Yeah, what Bugbread said. I don’t care about the mistake. It was originally a request for a funny story. It’s just that everything else you posted was simply bizarre.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:14 PM on February 22 [6 favorites]

Wait, never mind, I think maybe I figured it out myself.

First quote:
"Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post. "

Second quote:
"But overall, the spammers requesting free accounts usually say they have no money or can't afford the fee, then mention they're trying to grow their business and how the their product/knowledge could benefit MeFi."

Third quote:
"No, people who want to join MeFi to grow their business are denied free account"

Fourth quote:
"I am also curious as I don't recall one that got a spammer a free account."

Okay, so bear with me here. I'm thinking maybe this means:

First quote:
Some spammers tell a good story as they request a free account. They get free accounts. We'll call these "Type 1 spammers."

Second quote:
On the other hand, some spammers tell a good story but then end their story by giving away the fact that they are a spammer by talking about growing their business. They don't get free accounts. We'll call these "Type 2 spammers." The majority of spammers are Type 2 spammers, not Type 1 spammers.

Third quote:
Type 2 spammers never get a free account.

Fourth quote:
There are two possible cromulent interpretations of "I don't recall one that got a spammer a free account".
Interpretation 1: "I don't recall a case of a Type 2 spammer getting a free account."
So, "a Type 1 spammer has told a good story and gotten a free account at least once, but as far as I can recall, that has never happened for a Type 2 spammer."
Interpretation 2: "I don't recall the specific story that was told to get a spammer a free account."
So, "a Type 1 spammer has told a good story and gotten a free account at least once, but I can't recall what the story they told was."

Man, this is great. I'm getting the same kind of endorphin rush as when I watch a time travel movie or a Christopher Nolan movie and I'm thinking up the different possible interpretations and finding things that make the story parts click into place. "Oh, so when the guy shot the police officer, he wasn't shooting the gun dropped by the robber, but the fake gun placed by the scientist after getting out of the time machine! Ah, and that explains why the hot dog was cold but the ketchup was hot!"
posted by Bugbread at 6:20 PM on February 22 [16 favorites]

this pattern of misunderstanding, stonewalling, and just generally always missing the point shows massive disrespect to everyone who interacts with you. The mods should aspire to be exemplars of clarity, especially when posting on MeTa/with borders/with a staff tag. They should at least be demonstrating that they're aware of their deficiencies and working to improve them. And yet...
posted by sagc at 6:26 PM on February 22 [11 favorites]

Flagged

Picture yourself hoisted atop the shoulders of many MeFites, your victory is our victory
posted by ginger.beef at 6:27 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

well, Brandon, sometimes your mistakes don't seem like mistakes. they seem like you're fucking with us.

it happens a lot. you are frequently quite unclear in your communications. words are left out that make it harder to understand what you're trying to say, or you will couch your statements in a weird mutilayer wrapper of various qualifiers and negators that makes it hard for a reader to understand what you're actually saying. sometimes you come across as hostile, like that time you cut and pasted the same short sentence three times in a row in separate comments when a user was asking you to clarify what you meant. sometimes you are doing all of these things at the same time.

then sometimes what you do write is none of those things, like in this thread where all the words and sentences are relatively straightforward but are arranged in a way that just make no damn sense. is it a mistake? you wrote those words. i can only try to make sense of what you wrote.

as is frequently noted, user trust in the moderation team is at an all-time low. taken as a whole, i find it as time goes on and i see the same patterns repeating, it is harder to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not fucking with us.

i want to believe that you really do have the best of intentions for MetaFilter.com but as i've read and commented in all these threads over the last several months, i think that often you let your vibes and emotions dictate how you act on the site and often those vibes and emotions are primarily looking out for yourself and the mod team, not the overall good of the site.
posted by glonous keming at 6:30 PM on February 22 [18 favorites]

i was told that the bot hadn't paid the $5 because they had cited one of the available reasons for waiving the fee

I’m having fun imagining the possible scenarios here: the bot didn’t tell a story, the bot wrote a poem explaining why the fee should be waived, the bot wrote a story, but it wasn’t good, the bot wrote a story and maybe it was good, but Brandon doesn’t remember it, etc.
posted by snofoam at 6:31 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]

I made a mistake, and my mistake was lying, but it was about something that wasn’t really important, so I don’t know why you are getting all paranoid. I would never accidentally lie about site users, my own actions, or any other aspect of my job. Honest!

Also, I didn’t lie. It was a conflationary mix-up where made-up stuff became part of what I was posting, essentially through no fault of my own. And it’s weird that you keep bringing this up. How many more nonsensical excuses do you need?
posted by snofoam at 6:40 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]

BIPOC Advisory Board
The next BIPOC board meeting is scheduled for Saturday, February 22nd

Did this happen?
posted by Vatnesine at 6:42 PM on February 22 [5 favorites]

I’m having fun imagining the possible scenarios here: the bot didn’t tell a story, the bot wrote a poem explaining why the fee should be waived, the bot wrote a story, but it wasn’t good, the bot wrote a story and maybe it was good, but Brandon doesn’t remember it, etc.

to clarify, snofoam: the mod who interacted with me when i reported the disagreebot wasn't Brandon. The other mod is the one who told me that the fee was waived for that bot. I don't want to drag that mod in here by name, because they were very responsive and immediately acted on an obvious bad actor once it was reported to them; i just wanted to provide the datapoint that at least one scammer got onto the site without paying the $5, and that ("upon information and belief", as the lawyers say) it is because they specifically requested and got the fee waiver.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:49 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Thanks for clarifying!

Bowmaniac asked you what things you conflated.
Bowmaniac asked you what the mistake was.
Bowmaniac asked you what you were trying to say.
I asked you what the two types of spammers are.

I conflated a particular recent spammer's story, who paid the signup fee, with those that do not pay the fee. The conflation was the mistake and I was originally going to talk about that particular recent spammer's story, then changed my mind.

The two types of spammers are those who do pay the $5 and those who don't pay, while telling a story to justify getting a free account.

they seem like you're fucking with us.

No, that is not a goal or joy of mine, personally or professionally. I'd LOVE to have to comment less in threads like this or even better, have fewer threads go this way (while acknowledging they go this way sometimes because of mod issues).

The thing I'm most proud of at this job is getting the member to moderator policy changed and put in writing. So heads up, adreinneleigh, members can share mod communications, we just ask that you copy and paste the material instead of paraphrasing.

I do think I'm on the side of the users and want to make things better/easier/more enjoyable for the community. It just hasn't gone as quickly as I thought it would aka transitioning to a new site.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:51 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]

Ah, okay, so that first quote ("Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post") would really have been:

"Some spammers are people who can tell a good story as they request a free account, but that doesn't work. And other spammers pay the $5, and we only find out they're spammers after they've made a comment or post."

Not as dramatic or involved as my whiteboard covered with photographs arrows and circled words, but my curiosity is sated. Thanks.
posted by Bugbread at 6:56 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

I conflated a particular recent spammer's story, who paid the signup fee, with those that do not pay the fee.

Sorry, Bugbread, but I think you’ve still got it wrong. Contrary to all previously described spammer dichotomies, there is actually a THIRD type of spammer, who pays the $5 and ALSO tells a story.
posted by snofoam at 7:00 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

while acknowledging they go this way sometimes because of mod issues

this is the best we're gonna get, huh?

I hope the board and MOC both work back through each mod's public comments and evaluate them as if they were coming from a coworker or a manager. This just wouldn't be seen as normal in any organization I'm aware of, especially not from a paid employee.
posted by sagc at 7:13 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]

So there are "those who don't pay, while telling a story to justify getting a free account."? People with good enough stories that it works?

Did you conflate this category with the person/people who "then mention they're trying to grow their business and how the their product/knowledge could benefit MeFi"? Or was that meant to include "... in a later comment"?

I think that squares the circle, but just imagine how much easier it would have been to just say something like that in the first place, rather than leading users on a merry dance? Perhaps the mods could put their proposed comments + "what could be clarified here" into ChatGPT to good effect.
posted by sagc at 7:22 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Sometimes I think about getting involved in MetaFilter more than just reading and posting an occasional comment, and then I read MetaTalk.

Hot take: MetaFilter would be better off if MetaTalk didn't exist, or was replaced by almost anything else: a comment-less announcements page and a weekly zoom session with mods; Github issues + discussions; increasing the signup fee and mailing every user a stress ball; you name it. People have frustrations or concerns or are angry about something, and they the come here, and then they get more pissed off. I can count on one hand the number of times I have come here and read a thread and there weren't people getting irate over things that may or may not be either trivial or existentially important. It's probably partially site culture but I also think the unthreaded, untracked, async text only format here is just inherently bad for resolving issues, and also generates more of them (e.g. the spam discussion above). There is basically a direct pipeline from "visiting metatalk" to "angry burnout" for a significant portion of visitors.

(It's definitely true that positive change has come from MetaTalk. I just find it hard to imagine that these changes couldn't happen in more productive and less rancorous ways, and I doubt the format here helps.)

I will now resume my customary ignoring of MetaTalk. Thanks everyone who contributes time and energy and opinions to the site!
posted by ropeladder at 7:53 AM on February 23 [11 favorites]

Without sharing the contents of an email i was sent by a mod, since that's against the rules:

Yeah, that rule needs to change soon. All mod emails to members should be allowed to be shared publicly by the recipient. edit: with names redacted as needed
posted by catspajamas at 10:24 AM on February 23 [1 favorite]

No problem, two FAQ entries about communications were added back in July of 2024:

What is the policy on member to member communications via MeFi Mail?

What is the policy on member to moderator communications?

posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:53 AM on February 23 [1 favorite]

So... about the finances...
posted by ftrtts at 2:28 AM on February 24 [13 favorites]

In a reply to December's update, board member 1adam12 said:

> Calls for volunteers for at least three committees will be coming soon - moderation, elections, and member outreach. The moderation part is already in process.

We've heard quite a bit about the moderation committee. Is there any update on the other two?
posted by automatronic at 4:22 AM on February 24 [6 favorites]

We plan to have the new site ready for beta testing by members by the end of February.

I'm pushing this back to Monday, March 3.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 12:56 PM on February 24 [5 favorites]

I ran this by our treasurer (1adam12) and this figure is not accurate at all. I'd wait on him or loup fill in the particulars, but the site is *not* bleeding $10k a month, and in addition to not seeing a significant loss of income, we've actually realized a large reduction in monthly costs (which is not yet reflected in this report). What you're seeing are temporary reporting mismatches due to a combination of payment timings around the holidays and our having to change banks recently. Our new provider is much easier to work with, and these reports should be more straightforward in the future as a result.

When will the reports be updated to rectify the inaccuracies and mismatches?
posted by snofoam at 2:43 PM on February 24 [4 favorites]

BIPOC Advisory Board
The next BIPOC board meeting is scheduled for Saturday, February 22nd.
Did this happen?
posted by Vatnesine at 3:49 PM on February 24 [1 favorite]

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments