'based on the feedback from this thread'. What thread?

In the Fundraiser kickoff thread you posted a comment that said there would be a new banner "at least once per week". What happened to that?

This comment on September 9th asked how the fundraiser was going. Your response said that a fundraising update would be covered by the monthly site update post. Any reason why it took nine days to get a total?

Maybe this is unfair but from where I'm sitting, posting one banner update a week as well as a somewhat regular fundraising total doesn't seem like a massive effort. The 2022 crouton scale was an odd way to do that but it was something. Where can the members go to see how much money has been raised so far? Or is the answer that someone has to ask the staff and then the staff will respond at some point in the future?
posted by Diskeater at 9:39 AM on September 18 [9 favorites]

About derails -- I see a lot of inconsistency in whether they are reined in or not. Sometimes they take over a thread, but even when flagged, there is no response. I think moderation in general is often inconsistent.
posted by NotLost at 9:41 AM on September 18 [5 favorites]

comments aimed at enraging other members

I have a really low opinion of some other members (a mutual feeling in some cases I'm sure), but I don't think even the fightiest people here are deliberately seeking to enrage people. Is it admin's position that are significant numbers of intentional trolls present?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 10:20 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

What thread?

– This thread (edited the post to add the link).

Where can the members go to see how much money has been raised so far? Or is the answer that someone has to ask the staff and then the staff will respond at some point in the future?

I'm afraid we don't have an easy way to make that data available real time, that's why we decided to include fundraising updates in these site updates.

I think moderation in general is often inconsistent.

I've been thinking particularly about this since the thread linked above. I've worked with content moderation since 2006 and every site/service/company has different approaches. From past experience, places where the moderation is based on a set of clear rules that are enforced systematically with no room for interpretation end up (by design) being a particularly hostile place for members where the focus in on the enforcement without really looking into the context behind the decisions taken.

I think MeFi has historically had a very contextual and case-by-case basis approach to moderation that comes with great advantages but at the same time will make consistency harder. Then this is exacerbated by other factors like mod gaps (the actions you take with an abusive comment just posted may be different of the actions you will take for a comment posted 3 hours ago), lack of clarity about the actions take in the background, etc.

So, currently, our goal is to rethink the guidelines in a way where more contextual and human moderation is still possible and expectations are clearer for users, where the actions that will be taken are not a surprise and where mods have a clear path to act.

Is it admin's position that are significant numbers of intentional trolls present?
No, if anything, I personally think in most cases people have disagreements on certain topics and sometimes that doesn't go well. But sometimes these disputes escalate quickly and end up in just a few people trowing personal attacks and drive by comments aimed to enrage others.
posted by loup (staff) at 10:29 AM on September 18 [6 favorites]

I'm afraid we don't have an easy way to make that data available real time, that's why we decided to include fundraising updates in these site updates.

Nobody said it had to be real time. Daily or every other day would be great. Weekly would be acceptable. Graphical displays are not a must, plain text will do. This is not something that should take many minutes.

But then again all this was said during the previous fundraiser too.
posted by trig at 10:44 AM on September 18 [6 favorites]

I never said anything about real time fundaising updates. I said that a "somewhat regular fundraising total" update didn't seem like a tall ask during a fundraiser.

I also can't find where the staff decided to post fundrasing total updates in site update posts instead of fundraising update posts. Monthly fundraising total updates in a thread that's not dedicated to the ongoing fundraiser seems like a weird choice.
posted by Diskeater at 10:58 AM on September 18 [3 favorites]

This is not something that should take many minutes.
That's part of the issue, one would hope that is the case, but our stripe and PayPal instances are set up in ways that aren't great for getting accurate data. This is in fact, part of the reason why the wrap up of the 2022 fundraising was posted until the end of Jan 2023.

At this point, I'd consider using some of the Member Contribution Budget we have allocated since in June (that we have not used so far) to get help reconfiguring and optimizing our payment gateways so that we can get data on recurring revenue and tell apart sign-ups from member contributions faster. I don't doubt that things were set up in a way that made sense back when they were set up, but it's an different story today.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:02 PM on September 18 [1 favorite]

Listen, sometimes you do the best with what you have. "We're up to $X in one-time contributions, $Y in subscriptions, and $Z in not-yet-classified donations." That's the minimum of what you do if you care about being transparent and responsive and not killing goodwill.

If you can't even do that, you set expectations up front. "Hey guys, there's going to be a fundraiser but for some inexplicable reason we won't know how much money is coming in until next month so we'll all be flying totally blind." (Incidentally, I don't remember this being an issue with fundraisers run by previous managers. Nobody was super regular with updates, but somehow they managed to make updates.)

I've gotta stop making these comments, all of this was already said again and again last time around and it's like the ABCs of any project.
posted by trig at 12:32 PM on September 18 [15 favorites]

Or at least respond to the question and say "We don't have that data" in less than 4 days.
posted by bowbeacon at 1:56 PM on September 18 [4 favorites]

So far, we have raised $5,281.00 in one time contributions (17% of our original goal) and $200.00 in new Subscriptions (8% of our goal). We still have a lot of money in the bank, so while this is not where we wanted to be, there is no imminent emergency.

I think the writing is on the wall.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:33 PM on September 18 [4 favorites]

I'm very grateful for all the hard work that goes into running this place. I really like it here.
posted by BlahLaLa at 4:32 PM on September 18 [24 favorites]

It's awesome to hear that the new site will be (hopefully) open to the beta testers on the 29th.
I don't really understand the grousing about fundraising progress reports. I guess knowing where we are might help build a sense of momentum, but how's about everybody just gives what they think the site is worth to them/what they can afford and then we see what the final number is?
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 6:19 PM on September 18 [16 favorites]

Yeeesh, as someone who almost never comes to MetaTalk, the complaints about the fundraising updates strike me as really harsh towards someone who is clearly doing their best with limited resources. I think the updates that have been given are fine.
posted by mekily at 8:24 PM on September 18 [56 favorites]

I'm very grateful for all the hard work that goes into running this place. I really like it here.

Agreed. Moderation is jard and fund raising is really hard. Especially right now when so many people have no margin left to give. I love MetaFilter and I hate that I can't actively support it. I am sure a lot of other people feel the same way.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:45 AM on September 19 [11 favorites]

we have raised $5,281.00 in one time contributions (17% of our original goal) and $200.00 in new Subscriptions (8% of our goal)

I'm glad it's not just the GoFundMe, because that was looking pretty grim!

I hope folks who can chip in, do!
posted by pulposus at 11:31 AM on September 19 [4 favorites]

Daily or every other day would be great. Weekly would be acceptable.

Incidentally, I don't remember this being an issue with fundraisers run by previous managers. Nobody was super regular with updates, but somehow they managed to make updates.

...so, it's only fair to expect regular updates, because that wasn't an issue in the past, except in the past those updates also weren't regular. And also this specific unregular update is proof that we aren't getting the unregular updates that were not an issue in the past.
posted by solotoro at 2:43 PM on September 19 [10 favorites]

I'm trying to stop posting in this thread (and MetaTalk in general), but since the quoted comment was mine, I'll explain.

Before that though, I want to say I understand that my pushback seems harsh, and I get that it feels bad to read for people who don't feel that way. For what it's worth, it's based not just on this fundraiser but on the added context of the last fundraiser and the added context where the site has yoyoed multiple times from a super laid-back approach on financials to "it turns out we're on the verge of folding". As well as the added context where - for years now - admin updates at all, of any kind, and admin answers to user questions, have come only after extensive, repeated prodding and pleading on the part of users. The fact that there have even been regular site update threads for a while now, or any kind of financial transparency, or the fact that loup even showed up at all to respond to comments in the previous fundraiser thread, are the result of this kind of unpleasant pushback. Which I wish were not the case.

This used to be one of the most responsive sites on the internet.

And it's really based on caring about this site. I know loup has said "there is no imminent emergency", but that's been said before and it turned out to be not true (as the steering committee discovered). Even if it's true this time, loup's also repeatedly said that the reason that site staff is unable to perform even very basic tasks - like answering any questions in a site update thread - is because they're stretched so thin. And forget about anything beyond basic tasks, like the BIPOC board (the last minutes are from... January) or trying to attract new users. There is no slack, no elbow room, and definitely no ability to grow. So shouldn't trying to raise more money, in order to pay for sufficient working hours, be a priority? And shouldn't the site be handed over in a less broken state to whoever the next team is?


Anyway, a comparison of some past fundraisers based on results and update frequency:

This fundraiser has so far raised
- $5,281.00 in one-time contributions. Goal: $30,000
- $200.00 in new subscriptions. Goal: $5,000
Progress updates: one update, 6 weeks in (this thread)

Last year's fundraiser raised
- $14,203.00 in one-time contributions. Goal: no defined goal
- $882.00 in new subscriptions. Goal: making up $1,730 in discontinued subscriptions
Progress updates: biweekly updates were promised. Week 2 update... Week 8. (There were many requests for update in the interim, partly because the fundraiser was so listless and didn't seem likely to be doing well. It wasn't.)

The 2022 fundraiser, run by volunteers, raised
- $78,857.91 in one-time contributions. (!!) Goals (from basic to stretch): no set goal / $30,000 / $60,000
- $9,863.10 in new subscriptions. Goals: $7,000 / $13,000 / $29,000
Progress updates: Week 1, Week 2, Week 3. No further updates until the final one, but an explanation and a later one with a rough intake estimate. Two notes: (a) by Week 3 it was already clear the fundraiser had passed the basic goals; (b) if I read it correctly the latter explanation identifies lack of Mefi-internal automation as the holdup, rather than an inability to see numbers from Stripe or Paypal in real time. Final wrap up, 13 weeks in.

The 2021 fundraiser, run by cortex (and loup?), raised
- "several thousand dollars". Goal: no defined goal
- $1,099 in new subscriptions. Goal:$6K
Progress updates: week 1, week 2 (also here), week 4.


I'll add that besides indications of progress, I've been struck by two things. One is that it's not clear anyone who doesn't stop by MetaTalk would even know there was a fundraiser, unless they saw this user-made FPP from last week, 3 weeks into the fundraiser. In the kickoff thread someone said

It's great to have this on the banner but right now it is a little cryptic. Perhaps something like "August Fundraiser: Help Us Stay Joyfully Weird and Moving Forward!"

I'd also consider rotating through the various efforts as banners. So maybe one week you highlight the GoFundMe, another week inviting friends to join the site, etc. Giving people bite-sized, quick ways to help might get better results.

loup answered: "Yup, the idea is to have a new banner at least once per week during the entire fundraising season." A perfectly reasonable answer! But that didn't happen, though it's such a minimal investment of time, and to this day the banner is cryptic.

The other is that there's been very little push throughout the past few weeks to, you know, remind people about the fundraiser, show activity on the fundraiser, build enthusiasm, cheerlead. Even that thread Winnie the Proust started, which was an awesome effort - wouldn't that have been a good place for the manager of the site to say thank you and talk about the site, what it means, what the contributions mean - I dunno, show some involvement and do some community building? You know, to encourage contributions while that thread is at the top of the front page? Jessamyn showed up very casually in the beginning of the thread and Brandon took up a bit of slack two days later, but what a missed opportunity.

The 2022 fundraiser had enormous energy, activity, and goodwill, and also conveyed some urgency. My theory is that that's why it did so well, compared to the others which have fallen so very far short of their goals. TBH I'd thought that last year's fundraising results would lead to a different approach this year, and I am kind of shocked that it's basically a rerun. Judging by the results, maybe that's a common feeling.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to beat up on the mods. When there was no response at all to multiple questions and concerns in the last fundraising thread, and it looked like things might soon boil over the way they repeatedly have when loup disappears, I made a note in the earlier site update thread hoping that loup might at least see that, and when there was no response there I even sent a message through the contact form asking a mod to take a look and thus prevent yet another big fight and yet more loss of goodwill. At which point loup... responded, at least.

I dunno. I'm too tired. I hope I'm wrong to worry and the nonprofit will be handed a site with a healthy bank balance and membership.
posted by trig at 5:37 PM on September 19 [53 favorites]

"Our aim is to have clearer policies that allow us to step in and avoid derails and comments aimed at enraging other members and where we can set clear expectations with the members who get moderated."

need a MeFightClub subsite that's just a bunch of standing open threads on topics that MetaFilter doesn't do well, and then when shit starts up in other threads people can be asked to "take it outside [that thread]" with a link to the relevant standing open thread on MeFightClub

you know, like how most MMORPGs have designated PVP zones or servers
posted by Jacqueline at 6:49 PM on September 19 [4 favorites]

I agree that the banner fundraising link should be more clear and urgent.

Maybe some of that stipend money to pay for member help could be used for fundraising help.

Also, these fundraisers should be moved to not so strongly align with the U.S. election season.
posted by NotLost at 6:58 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]

"Sometimes they take over a thread, but even when flagged, there is no response. I think moderation in general is often inconsistent."

My experience is that the inconsistency is more about response time, not moderation policy. It may seem that the mods are allowing something to stay up that hadn't been allowed in other threads, but it's almost always because they just haven't gotten around to that thread yet.

I've found that using the contact form to message them when a quick response would nip things in the bud works pretty well.

Like the other day I misread an AskMe and my own early comments were causing a derail, so I flagged my own comments. When they were still up an hour later, I used the contact form to message the mods to please go delete my flagged comments ASAP because the thread was already starting to become more about responding to me than to OP. My problem comments and the problem responses were deleted pretty promptly after that.

So next time you see something that seems to be "inconsistently moderated" because some comments that normally would be deleted seem to have been "allowed" to remain up, give the mods the benefit of the doubt and use the contact form to message them a link to the thread with a friendly note that the flagged comments seem likely to cause a much bigger derail if not dealt with ASAP.

While I don't agree with every moderation decision here and I've probably been deleted more often than the average member, it's my honest opinion that MetaFilter is less arbitrary in its moderation than any other large site. Their standards have always incredibly consistent in the short term, and long-term changes in policy are discussed to death with the community first. And again, I say this as someone who has been on the "wrong" end of those moderation standards many times. I may not agree with their decisions but I appreciate the consistency with when they make them.

So, if they seem inconsistent, it's almost certainly a delay or accidental oversight and not a deliberate choice. The mods can't be everywhere at once, so if you find yourself questioning "why did the mods allow that?" then help them out by using the contact form to send them a link to the thread where you've already flagged all the problematic comments that they should take a look at.

Speaking as someone who has been here a very long time, the MetaFilter mods have thoroughly earned members giving them benefit of the doubt. Even when I think their decisions are wrong, I have complete faith that they are sincerely trying to be fair and do what is best for the community. I can't say the same about other sites, e.g., Reddit, Facebook, Tumblr, etc.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:20 PM on September 19 [9 favorites]

"This used to be one of the most responsive sites on the internet."

This also used to be one guy's passion project turned more-than-full-time startup business.

I don't think it's fair to expect people who are doing this as their regular job to be as responsive as a founder who had zero work-life balance and whose health was headed into the toilet from the stress. I wouldn't be surprised if mathowie was putting in 100+ hours/week back in the "glory days" of MetaFilter.

Several of the other mods and programmers over the years have also gone way above and beyond reasonable expectations because they loved the site too. As members, we benefited tremendously from mathowie's and others' willingness to sacrifice their free time and health to provide us with the best possible member experience, but none of that was sustainable forever.

MetaFilter as a mature ongoing concern needs to allow its employees to have a reasonable work-life balance, and members need to accept that's going to necessarily mean that mods are not as "responsive" as they were back when people were working themselves to death for our amusement.

As a member, I'd much rather have a less-well-run site with slower response time than have the mods and other site employees making themselves sick from stress and overwork.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:41 PM on September 19 [16 favorites]

Me too! I want to see them raise the money it takes to pay for enough staff and hours!

Can we at least agree that the current approach to fundraisers is not doing that?
posted by trig at 7:49 PM on September 19 [13 favorites]

I invite anyone complaining about MetaFilter not being as "responsive" as it used to be to please (re)read mathowie's retirement post to understand the real human cost of that "responsiveness."

He tried to put a positive spin on it, but if you read between the lines, it's clear that we literally destroyed his physical and mental health with our expectations.

Let's not do that to anyone else, okay?
posted by Jacqueline at 7:53 PM on September 19 [12 favorites]

I give up.
posted by trig at 7:54 PM on September 19 [12 favorites]

"Can we at least agree that the current approach to fundraisers is not doing that?"

Fundraising is a skilled profession, and the skills required to be a good fundraiser don't have a lot of overlap with the skills required to be a good moderator or site administrator.

If your criticisms of their fundraising approach come from a position of professional expertise, then why not volunteer those professional skills to run your fundraisers on the site's behalf?

The site admins have never been control freaks, so if someone thinks they can do it better, I'm sure you could talk with them arrange to set up a "Support MetaFilter" website to run your own fundraisers on your own time and dime and then remit the profits to the MetaFilter nonprofit org.

And nothing is stopping people from organizing a local fundraising event and posting it to IRL, or to start passing the hat at their existing regular IRL events.

I don't know what's going on in your part of the world, but in my area, nonprofit community organizations have been going out of businesses like crazy since 2020. Like multiple museums run by professional staff, including professional fundraising staff, have closed because donations are way down all over.

Whatever problems MetaFilter has been having with fundraising lately seem to be part of a larger economic trend and not due to incompetence.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:02 PM on September 19 [6 favorites]

Sorry if it feels like I'm singling you out, trig. That's not my intention.

I think anyone who was around during the mathowie-working-himself-to-death era was likely left with some unreasonable expectations, and we *all* need to get over those.

That level of "responsiveness" is never coming back, nor should we want it to, given the human cost.

Futhermore, I doubt it would be possible to replicate through increased staffing without such drastic changes to the site's traffic levels and monetization strategies to fund that increased staffing that it wouldn't feel like the same site anymore.

I'm all in favor of growing MetaFilter, but we can only absorb and enculturate so many new members at once. If there were suddenly 10 times as many people here, the 90% newbies who brought their problematic norms from elsewhere would almost certainly end up costing more in moderation resources than they funded.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:16 PM on September 19 [2 favorites]

It seems like the point of having a fundraiser, especially one with the goals set as high as this one and that included new subscriptions, was specifically to increase monetization, traffic, and members so that things like increased staffing could happen. Since no actual site goals were stated for the increased funds, I get that some of this is making assumptions, but it seems weird to be acting like trig somehow just made up the idea that a fundraiser might be directly tied to being to expand site resources.
posted by lapis at 8:20 PM on September 19 [9 favorites]

Again, fundraising is a skilled profession, and the skills required to be a good fundraiser have very little overlap with the skills required to be a good site admin or mod.

I'm speaking as someone who has attended numerous fundraising training classes and has some professional experience in the field, albeit not with the type of fundraising that would be relevant here. It's not as easy as it looks, and the stuff that seems "obvious" or "easy" to onlookers often is a lot more difficult than it seems or would be actively counterproductive.

It's really unfair to criticize people for not being very good at a job that isn't their regular job and that they've never been trained to do.

Has that ever happened to you at your job?

Do you enjoy getting chewed out for not having professional-level skills in something that isn't your chosen profession and isn't part of your usual job, but you're doing the best that you can because there's no one else to do the work?

When something like this happens to you at your own job, do you feel more motivated and committed to your employer, or do you start putting in applications elsewhere?

Do you think behaving in a way that encourages higher staff turnover is going to help or hurt your desired outcome of seeing more professional, more consistent fundraising efforts?

Ideally, MetaFilter-the-nonprofit will eventually hire a professional fundraiser who has actual training and experience in relevant forms of fundraising.

Until then, let's cut the amateurs some slack. This isn't the primary skillset that staff were hired for and they're doing the best that they can.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:52 PM on September 19 [12 favorites]

Updating the banner to be more direct doesn't require special skills or a dedicated volunteer, though, especially not when loup already promised to do it. It's basic community management.
posted by Threeve at 9:14 PM on September 19 [23 favorites]

the skills required to be a good fundraiser have very little overlap with the skills required to be a good site admin or mod.

Yes. The site is able to pay the staff largely because of donations. Right now the fundraiser is being run by that same staff.

Do you enjoy getting chewed out for not having professional-level skills in something that isn't your chosen profession and isn't part of your usual job, but you're doing the best that you can because there's no one else to do the work?

Absolutely not. I have zero background with fundraisers or soliciting donations or anything in that world. I agree – if I worked at a place that primarily relied on fundraising to pay my salary, and I had to assist in running that fundraiser, I would probably quit since I would be terrible at it.

Do you think behaving in a way that encourages higher staff turnover is going to help or hurt your desired outcome of seeing more professional, more consistent fundraising efforts?

I really don’t think “how much money has the fundraiser fundraised so far?” is an unfair ask when the site is running a fundraiser. If that is a difficult question to answer…why is that? I think even something like “we’ve raised around $10,000 so far via a mix of direct donations and subscriptions, we’ll provide a detailed breakdown in the next update” would be fine.

When something like this happens to you at your own job, do you feel more motivated and committed to your employer, or do you start putting in applications elsewhere?

If I tell my employer that I’m going to do something like provide a weekly update, and then I didn’t do that basic task, I wouldn’t be surprised if my employer wasn’t exactly thrilled with me.
posted by Diskeater at 9:19 PM on September 19 [13 favorites]

Y'all are fixating on "weekly fundraiser updates" as if it's the only task on staff's plate, or if it's the highest priority task and everything else should come second.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a ton of things that online community managers regularly have to prioritize that most community members aren't even aware are happening behind the scenes:

- Subpoenas from law enforcement or discovery in lawsuits

- Internal human resources issues

- Posts and comments from members who are suicidal or otherwise in immediate crisis, including posts submitted to the anonymous AskMe queue

- Various scams and spam posts that get deleted before we even see them

- Various hate speech comments from trolls that get deleted before we even see them

- Technical issues that disrupt the site's functioning

- Members who are mad about moderation decisions and engage in a ton of back-and-forth emails arguing with the mods about whether their decisions were fair

etc.

That's in addition to all the stuff we do see, i.e., moderating a bunch of contentious threads through two major geopolitical crises and the craziest US election of all time.

I think we can take it as a given that all the staff have more work added to their plates each week than they can complete in a week. So every week, they have to make choices about which tasks don't get done on time.

It's pretty easy for me to understand why "posting a weekly fundraising update" gets bumped in favor of something more legally or financially urgent.

If you can't understand that, then you have lived a blessed life to have never worked somewhere that was understaffed. Because in my experience "important but not urgent" tasks getting postponed again and again is completely normal.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:35 PM on September 19 [13 favorites]

And if the site is so strapped that it can't accomplish general tasks other than keeping the lights on, then having a real fundraiser that raises actual money should rise up in importance. If it's not that important, then someone should have thought about the fact that burning through community goodwill by not providing much in the way of explanation, enthusiasm, or support might not be a good long-term strategy, so maybe the fundraiser should have waited. Things could actually have waited much more, basically, and there are real consequences to making promises that aren't kept and to asking for money in such a way as to indicate it's not important if no one gives it. Pointing that out is not having unrealistic or inhumane expectations but just trying to get someone with authority here to think about longer-term consequences of their actions.
posted by lapis at 10:01 PM on September 19 [18 favorites]

"I don't think it's fair to expect people who are doing this as their regular job to be as responsive as a founder who had zero work-life balance"

What??? Anyone who is doing something as their regular job would be expected to do that job by any employer.


"- Subpoenas from law enforcement or discovery in lawsuits
- Internal human resources issues
- Posts and comments from members who are suicidal or otherwise in immediate crisis, including posts submitted to the anonymous AskMe queue"

I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that none of the mods are dealing with subpoenas from law enforcement. Regardless, if the mods aren't qualified to do fundraising, they certainly aren't qualified to deal with subpoenas (which should be handled by the owner), HR issues (which should also be handled by the owner), or suicidal members (who should not be handled by anyone who doesn't have training in that area).
posted by jonathanhughes at 4:22 AM on September 20 [16 favorites]

Mathowie left with a big pile of cash to make up for the (completely invented) destruction of his physical and mental health. He’s a big reason the site started careening into the shit, so if mods now are stressed by financial issues I’d say he’s involved but not as a victim.

I also think it’s shitty and manipulative to blame users giving basic feedback for allegedly wrecking someone’s mental and physical health.
posted by knobknosher at 5:40 AM on September 20 [11 favorites]

There was an operating loss this month. I know sometimes payroll moves around a bit but that is somewhat concerning and I would expect polite questions about fundraising if I were on the other end. I do think fundraising and moderation are two very different skill sets. I think the insight about timing this with the US election is a good one and maybe there should be something planned for spring or slightly earlier.

I wanted to hone in a bit on this. Please note this is spitballing, but I think it does speak to issues around bandwidth and site health.

I've worked with content moderation since 2006 and every site/service/company has different approaches. From past experience, places where the moderation is based on a set of clear rules that are enforced systematically with no room for interpretation end up (by design) being a particularly hostile place for members where the focus in on the enforcement without really looking into the context behind the decisions taken.

As we rebuild the platform, which I understand is to position future development, has there been any move towards developing requirements for a better set of moderation tools? I have not seen the MF back end for moderating, but I assume it's as creaky as everything else.

Because there are a number of moderation tools that can help bridge the gap you outlined above loup - basically either automating or making basic modding actions pretty one-click situations so that moderators can focus their efforts on the ones that require more context. Some examples are:

- a dashboard that shows everything that's flagged with the flagging reason - I assume this exists in some form

- one click "delete comment/post canned message/record action" options from that dashboard for simple things like derails, spam, etc. - also assume this exists in some form

- a dashboard that filters comments by keywords that can be set/removed by moderators to help track sort of current things. An example would be the term deadname, which obviously can be used in entirely legitimate ways but also can be an early flag that a conversation is not going well. Obviously in the modern era sites/environments with Real Moderation Tools are adding in LLM-type flagging for similar or partial phrases.

- same dashboard allows mods to bring forward comments by people who maybe are getting heated or who consistently need moderation.

The idea with these kinds of tools is to make the stuff you know is going to need a look very prominent, and to make the things that are routine fast. I think some longer-term things that would help would be:

- moderation log with monthly review and analysis - I assume this is happening on some level
- stats from the log made available - how many deletions, how many warnings, maybe a system where the tags from the original post/question are assigned to the deletions so that there's a way to look at the data from that lens. (I don't think it's worth moderator time to try to retag them.)

- a dispute process, if we could free up mod time to go through the process or have a volunteer method, would help a lot with transparency. I am not recommending a court-style process, but a form where a member can say "hey I dispute this deletion" and there's a weekly look at it.

The MeMail solution is just never going to be transparent, because how is one mod or a leader or say the BIPOC committee ever going to get access to that information? If there were a form it could be logged and we could see if, for example, there's a trend around which deletions are disputed.

Other tools help refine the mod team's actions over time, like a moderation log (does this exist?)

I hope this platform change enables some tools to be created quickly and efficiently. This was one reason I wished there had been an evaluation of alternate platforms, because moderator tools also get updated when you're using a standard solution.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:06 AM on September 20 [9 favorites]

I also think it’s shitty and manipulative to blame users giving basic feedback for allegedly wrecking someone’s mental and physical health.

I think it's pretty shitty to say someone's mental and physical health issues are completely invented.
posted by kbanas at 7:51 AM on September 20 [22 favorites]

That level of "responsiveness" is never coming back, nor should we want it to, given the human cost.
I'd just be happy with a banner that did not go away until the fundraiser was over, because honestly I thought the fundraiser was already done.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:56 AM on September 20 [2 favorites]

That's the beauty of it! The banner didn't go away, it just never once said the words "fundraiser" or "GoFundMe" or "donate". There's still a fundraising banner, but, as was pointed out multiple times, nobody knew that's what it was talking about.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:07 AM on September 20 [6 favorites]

you can dismiss that banner. I was thinking something that was at the top of every post. Maybe updated at the end of the day with number of donations, and how much we've raised.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:53 AM on September 20 [1 favorite]

"(completely invented) destruction of his physical and mental health."

...did you not read his retirement post?
posted by Jacqueline at 11:05 AM on September 20 [2 favorites]

My experience is that the inconsistency is more about response time, not moderation policy. It may seem that the mods are allowing something to stay up that hadn't been allowed in other threads, but it's almost always because they just haven't gotten around to that thread yet. I've found that using the contact form to message them when a quick response would nip things in the bud works pretty well.

I have had....a different experience.

There's a thread here on the gray about Harris' campaign, and how it was intersecting with some other users understandably-strongly-felt positions on Palestine. That thread became, to put it bluntly, a shit-show.

Now - the main reason why it became a shit-show is because of Users With Major Beef, on both sides. But one very, very big secondary reason why it did - and why other similar threads followed the same route - is because the moderation was inconsistent, way too timid, and just generally Not Getting It; the crux of the misunderstanding was whether people were being pressed to avoid a topic altogether, or whether they were being pressed to not talk about it every five minutes (and you will note I don't state what topic, because each camp was accusing the other of the same malfeasance over different subjects). And ultimately, about 5 longtime users buttoned.

People did use the contact form to ask someone to come in and help. That help was largely ineffectual, and I think most of the heat finally went out of the thread when users started sharing third-party blocking filters so they wouldn't have to read the comments of people they had beef with.

Again - I know that people were asking the mods to come in and help using the contact form. I was one of them. And it didn't seem to help much. And it was in the middle of all of that that the fundraising started up - and the whole thing soured me so much that I actually cancelled my regular monthly pledge.

Maybe the fundraising isn't doing as well because there are events that are causing some users to question what it is they're actually paying for.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:32 PM on September 20 [13 favorites]

I was only half-joking when I suggested a MeFightClub subsite with open permathreads on topics like Israel/Palestine
posted by Jacqueline at 1:23 PM on September 20

I was only half-joking when I suggested a MeFightClub subsite with open permathreads on topics like Israel/Palestine

I think that already exists, it's called Reddit.

Hey-yoooooooooo
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:33 PM on September 20 [6 favorites]

Point taken on the updates to the banner. Making an update today alongside with a “Ask Mods Anything” post and will work with the team to make sure we update it more for the remainder of the fundraising.

Let me address other comments:

– Maybe there should be something planned for spring or slightly earlier.

I like the idea, adding this to the list of recommendations for the new entity.

– Moderation was inconsistent, way too timid

Yes, agree entirely and this is exactly why we are working on changes to our policies.

– has there been any move towards developing requirements for a better set of moderation tools?
Yes, I’ve been speaking with frimble about possible quick improvements to our current tools and kirkaracha and I meet weekly and talk about the new site (that already includes several improvements to mod tools). We have a clear understanding of the needs we have and we’ll define new tool requirements once we have advanced in the development process.

– - a dashboard that shows everything that's flagged with the flagging reason - I assume this exists in some form

Yes, this exists currently.

– - one click "delete comment/post canned message/record action" options from that dashboard for simple things like derails, spam, etc. - also assume this exists in some form

Yes this exists but we do not not use templates, like at all.

– - a dashboard that filters comments by keywords that can be set/removed by moderators to help track sort of current things. An example would be the term deadname, which obviously can be used in entirely legitimate ways but also can be an early flag that a conversation is not going well. Obviously in the modern era sites/environments with Real Moderation Tools are adding in LLM-type flagging for similar or partial phrases.

That is a great idea, and I’d like to see some form of this..

– - same dashboard allows mods to bring forward comments by people who maybe are getting heated or who consistently need moderation.

Yes, we have this but it could be improved.

– - moderation log with monthly review and analysis

We do have a moderation log but it could be more robust..

– - stats from the log made available - how many deletions, how many warnings, maybe a system where the tags from the original post/question are assigned to the deletions so that there's a way to look at the data from that lens.

We have a basic version of this and we’d like this on a future road map.

– - a dispute process, if we could free up mod time to go through the process or have a volunteer method, would help a lot with transparency. I am not recommending a court-style process, but a form where a member can say "hey I dispute this deletion" and there's a weekly look at it.
Not yet, but the BIPOC Board has been working on an ombuds initiative and I hope this will come to fruition.

And forget about anything beyond basic tasks, like the BIPOC board (the last minutes are from... January)
I’ve been proposing changes to the Board's minute-taking and methodology since October of last year as the current process is, in my opinion, not scalable and requires weeks of reviews, different versions, and approvals. That being said, I can only make recommendations as the Board is an autonomous and self-governing entity.

Now, trig raises important questions about the state of the site, so let’s talk about finances.

Back in March of 2022 when Cortex stepped down and I took over, we had $35K in the bank, MeFi was spending more than it was generating, despite the coverage reductions made in July of 2021; revenue from contributions was ~$15K per month; and ad revenue was at its lowest (less than $2K/month).

We were aware of this and I started making the necessary plans and adjustments. I readjusted schedules again, created action plans based on possible scenarios. However, hosting costs also started climbing and our fundraising for that year was already delayed so the Steering Committee was hurriedly formed by the end of August, when we only had $7K remaining after paying for Payroll and expenses.

The last quarter of 2022 we focused on eliminating unnecessary expenses and organizing finances while the Steering Committee drove the fundraising. Thanks to them we ended up with a significant increase in monthly contribution revenue and $53,821.30 in reserves.

Since then, and while we wait for the new entity to be formed, we have eliminated all unnecessary expenses, more than doubled ad revenue, significantly reduced hosting expenses (and we keep doing that regularly), hired one developer to rebuild the site, one extra mod, made increases in coverage, and our current reserves amount to $148k. So this is what I mean when I say there is no imminent emergency.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:36 PM on September 20 [40 favorites]

That’s a great update loup, thanks. The work on the mod tools is important and I’d be glad to hear things like that in updates (no pressure:)). I didn’t expect a point by point response but I’m glad those tools are there or being considered.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:46 PM on September 20 [3 favorites]

The work on the mod tools is important and I’d be glad to hear things like that in updates (no pressure:))

Thank you! This is a perfect case for the Ask the Mods Anything 2.0 Podcast, the whole idea of that event is to take advantage of the different format to talk more casually about the ins and outs of MeFi (the business, not the community). You can use this form to submit any questions you are curious about. [Edited to link the post]
posted by loup (staff) at 1:56 PM on September 20 [2 favorites]

I just want to say thank you to trig for giving such a gracious and detailed response well beyond what my snark merited. You're Best Of The Web in my heart for the day, trig.
posted by solotoro at 1:59 PM on September 20 [8 favorites]

I think it's pretty shitty to say someone's mental and physical health issues are completely invented.

You are absolutely right. Apologies for that.

My point (badly made) was that he never attributed those issues to users being mean or any of the shit being used to guilt trip people here. He specifically said that it was due to the stress of entrepreneurship. What is “invented” is the narrative that the mean mean users ruined his life. He never said that and we have zero reason to believe that that is what happened. It’s gross to put that kind of narrative on people’s shoulders when it didn’t happen.
posted by knobknosher at 3:40 PM on September 20 [6 favorites]

Wow, thanks for that solotoro! It's been a crappy day and I feel oddly better now 🙏
posted by trig at 4:06 PM on September 20 [10 favorites]

I never claimed that "mean users" were responsible for mathowie's burnout and health issues.

I claimed that the amount of work mathowie put in to make MetaFilter "one of the most responsive sites on the internet" was responsible.

To clarify, I think that sacrifice was more about him holding himself to impossibly high standards than it was about demands from users, but those of us who have been here a long time got used to that level of responsiveness from the admins/mods.

My point is that we need to adjust our expectations to something more reasonable going forward, because the "good old days" benchmark we keep comparing things to had an (unknown-at-the-time) unacceptable human cost.

No one forced or even demanded mathowie work himself half to death, but now that we know that's what he was doing for us, we shouldn't expect anyone else to do that for us.

IMO everyone just needs to be patient until the transition to nonprofit status is complete, and then MetaFilter-the-nonprofit will have a lot more options for fundraising and accepting volunteer help.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:45 PM on September 20 [6 favorites]

Also, again, I invite people to please (re)read mathowie's retirement post if you think I'm exaggerating. He'd literally stopped eating and sleeping regularly because he was too busy working on the site. That destroys your metabolic health in ways that takes years to recover from, if you ever recover at all.

I don't think anyone is at fault here. I think it was an unfortunate feedback loop of mathowie and the other former core staff going above and beyond so many times that we started to expect it because we had no idea what they were putting themselves through to meet those expectations.

Now that we know, I think we need to rethink what's reasonable starting from scratch, instead of in the context of how things used to be. I don't want anyone else to make themselves sick trying to live up to the standards of that era because those standards were never sustainable.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:08 PM on September 20 [3 favorites]

No one in this thread is asking for anything unreasonable.
posted by Diskeater at 7:17 PM on September 20 [14 favorites]

Complaining about current staff not being as "responsive" as the old core staff were is unreasonable, given that the cost of that "responsiveness" was people's health and work-life balance.

I don't object to people having expectations. I object to people forming those expectations based on how things used to be.

I miss the "good old days" too, but now that I know the cost, I don't want to go back and I don't want current staff to feel pressured to live up to that standard.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:33 PM on September 20 [3 favorites]

Jacqueline, you've made 13 of the 53 (now 54, with mine) comments in this thread, which is pretty much a full quarter of them. We've heard you. We disagree, but you don't have to keep repeating yourself. We've heard you.
posted by lapis at 8:26 PM on September 20 [21 favorites]

Thanks for your response and engagement up-thread, loup.

To sort of agree with some of Jacqueline's point: One thing that could go very far to restore my confidence in MetaFilter as a business entity is if loup were more careful in what they committed to, and on what time-frame. There has been a long history of loup writing "I will [task x] by [time y]," and then either not doing it at all, doing it very late without communicating that it was going to be late, or doing something entirely lackluster more-or-less by the deadline. The trend of "BIPOC board minutes show that Loup has committed to do [x] but then didn't for [several months]" is about 50% of why I stopped financially supporting metafilter. The other half is inconsistent moderation, which has been covered up-thread.

Note that I'm not insisting loup should do everything the users ask them to. As Jacqueline points out, mathowie doing that led to some not great outcomes. All I'm asking is for loup to be selective in what they commit to do and when they commit to do it, such that we can trust these things will actually happen once loup makes a commitment to do them. That could be achieved by making fewer or more limited commitments to allow them to be completed by the self-imposed deadlines, by setting longer self-imposed deadlines, by working more efficiently to achieve the stated objectives by the stated time, by delegating tasks to someone else who is able to achieve them by the self-imposed deadline (consulting with them to ensure they actually can do it), or in the most extreme case by loup stepping down and allowing someone who's able to set and meet commitments to manage the site. The only consequence loup faces for not meeting user expectations is a gradual erosion of trust and goodwill, so I understand why they don't feel obligated, but also the outcomes from the current round of fundraising seem to reflect an ongoing erosion of trust and goodwill, so maybe it's worth paying attention to.

Like, seriously. Please don't say "we're going to update the banner" and then just.. not. This pattern destroys trust, which is thin on the ground these days.
posted by Alterscape at 8:30 PM on September 20 [29 favorites]

Oh good lord. This thread features some serious micromanaging-from-miles-away of a person who has put an incredible amount of energy and commitment into this site. You think they should be replaced in their role? Okay. Why would you imagine anyone ”better” would want to take it over, if this is the dynamic?

I’m not trying to speak for staff here, or be a gallant knight, or to inflame things. I think some of our community members’ expectations are sky-high, and it hurts to see these threads start to read like a pile-on. Don’t want to donate? Then don’t. Ready to button? Then button. Maybe loup has acted in ways that make it impossible for you to stay here happily. But please consider that, especially given the ratio of loups to users, it’s also possible for community members to act in ways that make it impossible for staff to stay here happily. Both of these things can lead to sitedeath.

“I used to donate, but the service wasn’t good enough, so I stopped, so now the site has less money to serve me, but I’m still going to show up to insultingly list a bunch of trite, generic ways that the person who kept the site alive should Do Their Job Better, which will surely improve service.” Argh.

Am I being the Tone Police? Is Jacqueline? I dunno, maybe. But these threads aren’t easily moderated, since they’re responding to a moderator, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to speak up like this. If community members want to roleplay as loup’s manager, then they should expect others to roleplay as mods.
posted by sixswitch at 10:26 PM on September 20 [13 favorites]

Like, seriously. Please don't say "we're going to update the banner" and then just.. not. This pattern destroys trust, which is thin on the ground these days.

You’ve never worked at any office anywhere, have you?
posted by Melismata at 4:09 AM on September 21 [4 favorites]

Y'all are right. I was out of line, and I'm out.
posted by Alterscape at 5:01 AM on September 21 [3 favorites]

All this, as pointed out above, is working knowledge among people familiar with fundraising. It’s clearly not a strength of the staff (though it’s basic enough and any number of 60 minute on demand webinars are available to train someone on the 101).

Ok, I have a longer shift today and looking around I see there's some links on r/non-profit

Some suggestions mentioned are:
nonprofitready.org
Candid

Googling produces these suggestions:
Fundraising 101 by the Do Good Institute
The Association of Fundraising Professionals some webinars. Do the fundraising professionals think MeFi joining this group would be good in the long term?

Besides the links above is there a particular course/webinair/link that fundraising professionals would recommend for MeFi to learn from?

Thank to all who have chimed in with support and constructive criticism, it is welcomed and appreciated!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:33 AM on September 21 [12 favorites]

Ask the Mods Anything 2.0 Podcast, the whole idea of that event is to take advantage of the different format to talk more casually about the ins and outs of MeFi (the business, not the community).

This really annoys me actually. Sorry that I'm about to go off on this but - fuck.

I mean, it's good to point to the fundraiser, props for that. But really?

I appreciate that the way things have been run has burned through staff and moderators and I appreciate that the current team is hanging in there. And I know it's annoying to get posted at here; I didn't love it when I was doing it, even if that was kind of the summer from hell personally.

But I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the hell is going on with staff time and energy on this site. I do not understand why things cannot get updated when they are supposedly a priority. I do not understand why it's so difficult to clearly state values and make clear policies on things like the Harris/I/P things, or why there are not just set responses for a simple derail.

Where I am is I feel like it's been a mistake to give time and money to a site where there's no willingness to really partner in the actual work of the site. I am waiting for that to change with the new structure. And like hey, man, I recognize that keeping me happy is not the job of the mods.

BUT - if you all have the tools I outlined, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is taking so much time. I have professionally moderated a site that was 21 times the size of this site in active members and daily posts with 3 staff that never worked overtime - admittedly this was back in the pre-Twitter days, but it was brutal during the Preston Manning years, and we also did not have half the tools MetaFilter apparently has - especially with the front-end filters that have been installed on language and $5 charge.

We had time between moderating tasks to also run an editorial site and deliver content in partnerships.

The answer of "there's no time" just doesn't work for me. There are no priorities. There's little accountability. These create situations that humans - which I know you all are - find it hard to bring good work to. So I get that. But it is watching the ship go down and it's frustrating.

No, I will not pay to ask that for a podcast that is not going to be worth the time it takes to create. It's a shit fundraising idea.

A weekly post on the blue and the green of moments members really shared insight or stepped up with links to past post and an appeal, with gratitude, would take half the time and probably result in a lot more money. Now that I've typed that, obviously "anyone" can do that but I'm just a member. It would mean a lot more coming from staff.

(If you, dear reader, want to prove me wrong, go donate to the podcast....there's an appeal for you.)

I still assume that there are reasons - whether technical, training, good managing, communication problems - for that gap that are not malice or ill will or laziness. But man, it's frustrating.

Meanwhile, as Miko pointed out, goodwill is getting burned through. Mine is evaporating or I wouldn't make this post. You had Adrian Hon on your side, a real expert with serious business chops and he left.

I don't know. I don't know if it's a communication issue or a structural issue. I was invested in seeing the site continue; I enjoy it and I also enjoy that it exists. I am holding out that the new structure will bring opportunities to do things that will actually help. But may faith is wavering. I investigated helping the board but I found out they have meetings twice a month, on a night I can't attend, and honestly - why would they need so many meetings? To me that says work is not getting done. But who knows? (This is not a slam at them, it's a statement of my frustration.)

I hope that I'm wrong.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:05 AM on September 21 [45 favorites]

There is a difference between paid work and volunteering.

I have a small shred of hope for the BND of the new ownership org, but the slowness of the transition continues to be discouraging.

I encourage anyone discouraged or displeased by the progress of the volunteer interim board to offer to help the board.
posted by NotLost at 8:28 AM on September 21 [7 favorites]

"...while this is not where we wanted to be"

Adding new one time contribution to go with my recurring one.

If you have some work that can be done from home, I'm available.
posted by aleph at 8:33 AM on September 21 [1 favorite]

I did, as you know, and the requirements to help are just not possible because they’re not tasks, they are meetings.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:41 AM on September 21 [8 favorites]

Okay that sounded cranky, sorry. Meetings are involved.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:24 AM on September 21

I encourage anyone discouraged or displeased by the progress of the volunteer interim board to offer to help the board.

You realize the person you're responding to spent a long time advocating for the change to non-profit status, among many other wise and professionally informed suggestions, and was repeatedly shot down by staff and told that this was not workable and in fact illegal?

As mentioned in this and every thread about the state of the site, the reason a lot of people who could have helped aren't helping is that they were shouted down for years and finally shook the dust from their feet.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:30 PM on September 21 [30 favorites]

In 2022, as part of the fundraising effort, the steering committee connected the mods with at least one professional fundraiser and community member who met with them and shared their expertise for free. I don't know if anything that was suggested was taken seriously, I can't assess that, but the current state of affairs suggests not. I know they're doing their best but admin has been resoundingly resistant to receiving expert advice on these and other matters from the community for a really long time. Suggesting that it's actually the community's fault because we aren't volunteering to help is crummy and a bummer to see.
posted by twelve cent archie at 2:00 PM on September 21 [22 favorites]

It seems clear to me that the move to community ownership and leadership will also need to involve a move to community (volunteer) moderation. There’s never going to be enough money sloshing around to pay for the always-on paid moderation that used to happen. Part-time moderation just isn’t working on a full-time site. I wouldn’t say the mods are quiet quitting, but they for sure see the writing on the wall. I hate that the work always seems to burn out well-meaning people, and I’m sorry the system isn’t working and will probably end up restructuring people out of jobs. I imagine staff would be more eager and energized if things weren’t going so poorly and if it looked like a good long-term position. As it is I can’t really blame anyone for seeming a little checked out.
posted by rikschell at 2:01 PM on September 21 [9 favorites]

Belated response:

> – Moderation was inconsistent, way too timid

Yes, agree entirely and this is exactly why we are working on changes to our policies.

I have to wonder why, when faced with a very volatile thread which was causing many users to button, the mods chose to "work on changes to the policies" as a long-range plan instead of dropping everything and making that a more immediate priority.

When your town library is burning from an electrical fire, you don't call a meeting to evaluate whether the electrician you'd hired is most suited for future jobs, you put out the fire.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:33 PM on September 22 [18 favorites]

Hello! Just chiming in to give a few updates:

– We’ve raised $71 more in subscriptions since the last update and $653 in one time contributions. And seventy one dollars is, incidentally, what we spend on our Google Workspace each month. Thank you so much for that, it will surely make a difference.

– I get the criticism against the AMA Podcast, but please, consider contributing with your wisdom by submitting questions that you would like to see addressed during the podcast. Beyond the fundraising, I'd like to take advantage of the format to talk more freely and casually about any and every question you have.

– kirkaracha has been working on the final details to give early access to the new site and walked me through it today. We’ll be pushing the release date from September 29 to sometime early next week while we finalize the last details. I’ll create a separate post for it as soon as we’re ready.

– Remember you can still submit your recipes for the MeFi Cookbook.
posted by loup (staff) at 3:50 PM on September 27 [2 favorites]

I may be alone in this, but just so that you're aware: I don't click Google anything if I can help it. So I will never submit anything through a Google form.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:03 AM on September 28 [4 favorites]

Update on the new site:

We're changing web hosts for the staging server and the DNS change will take a day or two. We'll make and announcement and MetaTalk post once this is all set.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:58 PM on October 3 [3 favorites]

What ever happened with this? Feels like when you say something will take a day or two, that's also the timeline you should provide updates on.
posted by sagc at 4:27 PM on October 13 [7 favorites]

loup doesn't monitor MetaTalk threads, you will need to message them or use the contact form if you want a response.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:52 AM on October 14 [1 favorite]

I think it’s absurd to ask for an update. This isn’t a multi trillion dollar company. Just praise the moderators and move on.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:25 AM on October 14 [1 favorite]

I know you can't post the answer here, but did you get a response from the contact form?
posted by bowbeacon at 6:15 AM on October 16

I did not in fact use the contact form, because I don't want to be in the position of caring more about this site than the management.

The radio silence since the end of the fundraiser (the end of September, per this post) is hard to take as anything but concerning, though.

ETA: contact formed utilized.
posted by sagc at 6:25 AM on October 16 [3 favorites]

Contact form has been answered! The site update should be out today or tomorrow!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:33 AM on October 16 [3 favorites]

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