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 [5 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 [7 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 [7 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 [13 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 [1 favorite]

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 [13 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 [59 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 [15 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 [8 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 [37 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 [5 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 [22 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 [5 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 [4 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 [5 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 [17 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 [12 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 [1 favorite]

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 [39 favorites]

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

This is an incredible exchange.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:09 AM on February 22 [13 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 [17 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 [13 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 [9 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 [51 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 [25 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 [16 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 [18 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 [10 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 [6 favorites]

Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
posted by Diskeater at 12:12 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]

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 [5 favorites]

it's an accountability partner, not an accountingbility partner
posted by phunniemee at 1:11 PM on February 22 [17 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 [11 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 [22 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 [16 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 [7 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 [20 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 [13 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 [20 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 [6 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 [15 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 [2 favorites]

So... about the finances...
posted by ftrtts at 2:28 AM on February 24 [16 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 [9 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 [8 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 [8 favorites]

Well, that wraps up another successful site update, kids! Looks like we all agree everything is going great! See you in March!
posted by donnagirl at 5:08 PM on February 24 [11 favorites]

Yeah not ideal, but you can’t win them all. At least no one buttoned.
posted by Vatnesine at 6:50 PM on February 24

> At least no one buttoned.

don't give up yet, we've 26 days yet to go 🍔

anyway, since this is the least-offtopic place i could think to put this, i wanted to link to an example of a modlog i rather fancy. it is the modlog over at lobste.rs, a tech/dev/programmer site. it is part of the footer of every page there, so it is always present. it is similar to the MeFi contact form in that way.

it consists of 5 elements: a timestamp, a moderator, a thing, an action, and a reason.

the timestamp is obvious. the moderator is the person who took the action. the "thing" is the item that was moderated (comment that was deleted, thread that was edited, user that was banned, etc). the action is what was actually done. the reason was the justification for the action. the when, who, where, what, and why. it also has a nice value-add of the filters and drop-down at the top to select a particular moderator.

i personally think this is a good concept of a model of a template to start from. i'm sure that together we can come up with a bunch of reasons why this is a terrible idea that would never work, but i figured there's no time like the present to nudge people who haven't already formed an idea about what the modlog might look like into thinking about the realities.

season ticket holders will probably see this brought up by me again in the next modlog-adjascent discussion.
posted by glonous keming at 8:02 PM on February 24 [20 favorites]

glonous keming, that looks just the thing! Wow, a lot of users change their username there! They get hats?
posted by dg at 8:23 PM on February 24 [2 favorites]

Lobste.rs also has roughly the same number of active users as this site and manages to get away with spending just $75 a month on hosting. The cost is so low that they don't accept donations.
posted by steveminutillo at 8:33 PM on February 24 [18 favorites]

The site should figure out a way to allow for account wipes without deleting and sweeping under the rug threads that are extremely revealing about both moderator actions and what sort of things they'll tolerate.

Not a good look; the posts from d_d and n-p were important, there was a lot of genuine good advice for the mods throughout, and the racist ending was a stunning illustration of what will be tolerated in Metafilter.

Making it publicly inaccessible is, once again, the mods allowing a problematic user to dictate the terms of the conversation, even after they've buttoned. Y'all have a very bad habit of this (cf. hippybear [whom the mods had us discussing as "A User"], for example, or the still-unexplained response to the Young girls comment currently being discussed in another MeTa).

Do you acknowledge that this is, at the very least, a technical issue with extremely poor optics?
posted by sagc at 9:08 AM on February 25 [10 favorites]

If they hadn't erased the thread gDPR would have made them pay twenty million dollars.
posted by mittens at 9:11 AM on February 25 [4 favorites]

Every time a bastard self-owns, an angel gets its wings.
posted by phunniemee at 9:23 AM on February 25 [5 favorites]

good moderation means being able to tell the difference between "this is for safety" and "this is so no one can see how much of a dick I am."
posted by knucklebones at 9:54 AM on February 25 [4 favorites]

Obviously, it is important to be civil to other members of the site, but if someone closes their account and does a wipe, we can finally say whatever we want about them, right?
posted by snofoam at 9:55 AM on February 25 [2 favorites]

Do you acknowledge that this is, at the very least, a technical issue with extremely poor optics?
Yes, 100%.

Can we get a balance sheet also?
Yes! You can find the balance report as of today here.

Did this happen?
Yes.
posted by loup (staff) at 10:12 AM on February 25 [1 favorite]

Wait, whenever someone gets an account wipe, every thread they've ever started is "closed" (but somehow still accessible via link and shows their username)?
posted by dusty potato at 10:17 AM on February 25 [2 favorites]

what do you plan to do about this technical problem? I can think of some workarounds, but the mods really should have thought about possible solutions before deleting the thread.

What exactly is the mod stance on account wipe requests immediately following poor, guideline-breaking behavior? Is there a sense that the guideline-breaking should be publicly acknowledged, or is it better to pretend the poster never existed? This gets at the questions above about what the mods are taking away from these threads - is the community owed some sort of mod opinion on egregious outbursts? In a thread like that, I think they are. Otherwise, the mods are condoning it via silence and allowing the perpetrator to save face.
posted by sagc at 10:20 AM on February 25 [6 favorites]

On the balance sheet, there’s a Foundation checking account, a US checking account and $10k in Metafilter LLC. Is the US checking account part of the Foundation assets? Is the LLC amount something retained for existing LLC obligations (e.g., 2024 taxes)? It’s enough money to be notable.
posted by snofoam at 10:28 AM on February 25 [1 favorite]

but the mods really should have thought about possible solutions before deleting the thread.

What exactly is the mod stance on account wipe requests immediately following poor, guideline-breaking behavior?
Complying with our privacy policy was the main goal here. Otherwise the Board has been actively working on improvements (both technical and procedural) to address account wipes since last month.

Is the LLC amount something retained for existing LLC obligations (e.g., 2024 taxes)? It’s enough money to be notable.
Yes, exactly.
posted by loup (staff) at 10:35 AM on February 25

the...?

if it's happening on the new site, it's irrelevant here, where one particular thread is suddenly hidden.

Also, dusty potato makes a good point - doesn't this level of account wipe normally lead to a wiped user page, and any posts becoming not found, a la the Porky's Askme? Because the entire text of the post is still there. There's not a cutout for that in the privacy policy, as far as I can see, and they have 0 posts listed on their account, but they're still the poster when you click the link above.
posted by sagc at 10:43 AM on February 25 [2 favorites]

I actually wasn't making any particular point (although thanks!); while I did find it super weird that this user's content/name is still accessible given what was stated about an account wipe, I mostly just was surprised to learn that the consequence of account wipes is that they take out entire threads. I guess I would have thought that the OP's specific text would be deleted but the thread itself with everyone else's contributions would stand.
posted by dusty potato at 10:52 AM on February 25 [1 favorite]

posts becoming not found

That happens for Ask/IRL threads for privacy protection, but not other subsites since that would destroy thousands of other people's comments (which still show up in search though and cause a mess of broken links). Frimble is working on some technical fixes to better target a requester's own content for deletion that minimizes collateral damage, and the new site should be able to handle it more flexibly as well.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:03 AM on February 25 [4 favorites]

loup, maybe you missed this above (might be a good idea to just search for "loup" in this thread so you can respond to questions about the financials), but can you clarify if the monthly donations actually dropped to 10,773 in January or is that some kind of reporting issue?
posted by ssg at 12:10 PM on February 25 [2 favorites]

Am I just Dunning-Krugering the hell out of this, or are account wipes just being made infinitely harder than they should be?

Like, shouldn't it just be something along these lines?:
Before
After

Back in the old days, this would have just been a few basic SQL commands, like "update BigOleTable set PostTitle='Deleted at user request' where User='Example Mefite'".

I understand that the world has moved beyond basic SQL to using CrunchBase+ on AWQ through twin Porlix using the Bloonf Framework in a KleUUUURg!! Shell, but there's no way it's now this hard to just change the content of Field X where the User is Y. Or is it? Has doing basic operations on the data in a database somehow become that hard?
posted by Bugbread at 2:12 PM on February 25 [7 favorites]

So, it has been confirmed that 1/12th of Metafilter’s assets are actually set aside for paying 2024 taxes. I would guess that, at a minimum, twice that much should be set aside for an orderly wind-down of the foundation. It would be interesting to know, if the finances are organized enough to calculate a burn rate, how much time there is left once we set aside these expenses.
posted by snofoam at 4:41 PM on February 25 [2 favorites]

Bugbread see this comment of Rhaomi's. Basically the wiping process is changing, frimble is still working on it, and there's been a ornery bug or two.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:46 PM on February 25 [1 favorite]

Right, I read that, I guess I just don't really understand it. But given that it sounds like the new site will actually be rolled out in the near future, I guess it's not a big deal. Just puzzling.
posted by Bugbread at 4:59 PM on February 25 [2 favorites]

Why was an incomplete and misleading P&L posted to begin with?
posted by CtrlAltD at 3:12 AM on February 26 [12 favorites]

I had my MOC interview earlier this evening and I'm feeling optimistic about mefi's future for the first time in a while. The current folks on the MOC team seem motivated and intent on facilitating some real accountability, finally, from the moderation team. Here in the continuing adventures of baffling site updates, that's one really good thing I wanted to share.

I really, really hope that the paid staff (and the board) appreciate this as an opportunity to make some actual and actionable changes to the way conflicts are handled here, and doesn't once again squander the good, hard work of another group of earnest and community-minded volunteers. I'll be watching.

Kybard it was excellent to meet you!
posted by phunniemee at 5:36 PM on February 26 [24 favorites]

Lots of people had concerns about account wipes being used to hide bad behavior or causing collateral damage but the feeling I’ve gotten is people don’t want mods to have discretion because they don’t feel like mods are necessarily on their side.

I don’t really see what there is to do here except revamp this feature (on the new site or whenever it makes sense) to cause less collateral damage and to keep the potential abuses in mind next time we are discussing a self-serve delete function.

the racist ending was a stunning illustration of what will be tolerated in Metafilter

gotta say I’m having a hard time seeing this angle on this one. The hole AP dug becomes relevant in the event that he ever wants to come back, but for now he’s gone. Stopping him from digging it is not conventionally what’s expected from moderation on MeTa, is it?
posted by atoxyl at 7:24 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]

But moderation didn't stop him digging at any point! He dug and dug, then asked the mod team to pave over the hole as if nothing ever happened, and they obliged.

Edited because I misread: mods might not stop people digging, but they should at least be able to acknowledge that there's a hole. To date, they have not commented.
posted by sagc at 7:34 PM on February 26 [5 favorites]

I mean, maybe they should have done something to force him to take a step back before he got to the point of insinuating that concern about racism was a smokescreen for poop jokes (?) and taking potshots at people for (incredibly openly) being BNDs. And I think the self-memory-hole via account wipe sucks. But I’m not aware of a precedent for a statement after the fact, and while one could hardly accuse me of being reluctant to criticize site administration more generally, “why hasn’t [X] condemned [Y]?” grandstanding is just not something I feel to be productive.
posted by atoxyl at 8:15 PM on February 26 [6 favorites]

☆★☆★CONgRATULATIONS!!!★☆★☆

I just wanted to extend my congratulations to MetaFilter on the one year anniversary of "Waiting for the Minutes to BIPOC Meeting #23"!

2024 and early 2025 have been a tumultuous period--a period of great change, both out there in the big world and here at this website. So it's good to know that in the midst of this hectic change, there are some things that we can rely on. And one of those things is "the minutes to BIPOC Meeting #23 are being worked on and should come out soon."

I hope I can see you all again here a year from now, on February 27, 2026, to celebrate the second anniversary of "Waiting for the Minutes to BIPOC Meeting #23".
posted by Bugbread at 12:16 AM on February 27 [31 favorites]

Just in case no one has asked multiple times in this thread already, when will we be seeing financial reporting that actually reflects the state of the foundation?
posted by snofoam at 3:44 AM on February 27 [10 favorites]

(snofoam, you forgot to include the "#pleaseanswer" tag)
posted by Bugbread at 2:53 PM on February 27 [1 favorite]

when will we be seeing financial reporting that actually reflects the state of the foundation?

Maybe this is one of those "you have to use the contact form" kinds of questions. I'll try that and let you know!
posted by donnagirl at 3:21 PM on February 27 [4 favorites]

And if that fails I'm going to suggest creamed corn for better financial reports
posted by donnagirl at 3:22 PM on February 27 [3 favorites]

If the foundation is doing okay financially, rather than in steep decline like the posted financials indicate, maybe the foundation should hire an accountant to do some reality-based bookkeeping. (Just a thought I had while waiting to hear why only inaccurate financial statements are being shared with the community.)
posted by snofoam at 4:19 PM on February 27 [4 favorites]

If the foundation is doing okay financially, rather than in steep decline like the posted financials indicate, maybe the foundation should hire an accountant to do some reality-based bookkeeping. (Just a thought I had while waiting to hear why only inaccurate financial statements are being shared with the community.)

Or just give a volunteer access to QuickBooks and ask them to run the reports; it takes about five minutes
posted by bunton at 4:54 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]

I'm going to suggest creamed corn for better financial reports

After all this time, it was creamed corn that united us
posted by ginger.beef at 5:42 PM on February 27 [3 favorites]

Well, I popped in just about a month after I was last here, in the Twitter thread.

a) Still no answer to what is going on with Twitter links, so I'm going to continue with my absence from the site, along with my monthly donation. (Checked that thread, checked the FAQ, not seeing any updates anywhere.)

b) Speaking of, these financials make very little sense and there's been exceedingly little clarification with regards to whether or not the site's donations are dropping like whoah. My $20 a month isn't making that much of a difference, but I'm wondering if there are many others like me who are just noping out now, for one reason or another. Can we please get some clarity regarding the financial health of the incoming revenue?

c) Having been a moderator (not here) of a wide variety of online communities, it can be difficult to come to the community and give them news that's not great (or that's not interpreted well), or not have an update at all. So I have a lot of patience and sympathy for anyone doing online mod work. I get it. It's hard.

... that said, the derail related to the spam accounts in here was legitimately facepalm-worthy. Like what the hell, gang?

d) Speaking of things that are worthy of a facepalm or two, how are the BIPOC minutes from a year ago not posted?!

It really sucks to see how poorly things are continuing to go here. I have been a part of MeFi for almost half of my life. I really, truly think the world is a better place with a healthy MeFi in it. I don't know how we've gotten here, with financials that don't make sense, mods who seem to be gaslighting members (seem being the key word, I don't think anyone's doing it on purpose), staff who don't care enough to get minutes of important meetings up... It makes me sad. I've chipped in financially both times when the site was in critical danger of shuttering. I've continued to make monthly donations. I've continued to believe that MetaFilter can do better.

I'll give things another month before I come back and check in again. I still have some hope and I want to be sure to pass my thanks to the staff who have provided at least some clarity and answers (and to kirkaracha who continues to work on the new site). In general, though, this update? What an absolute trainwreck.
posted by juliebug at 10:52 PM on February 27 [27 favorites]

Friday Flashback: in the September 2024 site update, early access user testing of the new site was pushed back to September 29, 2024.
posted by snofoam at 10:39 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]

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

Oh, right, I think I remember that discussion now. Didn't loup or someone say that mod emails are forbidden to share and the user base pushed back so hard the reverse was codified as you noted? It's hard to keep track of this stuff, so apologies for forgetting that was corrected last summer.
posted by catspajamas at 7:46 PM on February 28 [4 favorites]

I'll try that and let you know!

Just an update, I have not yet received any response. And to be clear, I didn't ask for accurate financials, I asked when we could see them. I'm gonna start prepping my creamed corn just in case!
posted by donnagirl at 2:47 AM on March 1 [4 favorites]

Brandon, the Dec and Jan P&L statements still include incorrect numbers for "Contractors/Consulting" costs that are below what the actual costs were for those months. Is there a timeline for correcting those, or am I missing where in "the usual folder" those were updated?
posted by catspajamas at 7:53 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]

Also, the updated December 2024 P&L is still inaccurate — it says that Metafilter raised $148k in recurring donations that month.
posted by bunton at 7:57 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]

Why the heck are you in this thread posting, "The inaccuracies were addressed" when the answers you provide are just links to the inaccurate documents that led to the concerns in the first place?
posted by catspajamas at 8:03 AM on March 1 [11 favorites]

I have two simple questions:

1. How much did the site spend on staff salaries in December 2024?
2. How much did the site spend on staff salaries in January 2025?

Again, I sometimes miss things, so am willing to entertain that it is *not* completely bonkers no one on the mod team has given a clear answer to those questions yet, so feel free to share whatever clarifications staff has that will help. Thanks.

Edit: ah I see the updated December form that lists $26,810. I'd been pointed to that before, my apologies. But I don't see a January 2025 update. Can we get an answer to question #2? Thanks again.
posted by catspajamas at 8:06 AM on March 1 [3 favorites]

This has also been asked previously, but can you confirm whether recurring donations really dropped to $10,773 in January?
posted by bunton at 8:25 AM on March 1 [1 favorite]

Just to make this absolutely clear, saying "everything is fine, it's just some accounting thing" is absolutely not addressing the inaccuracies. Posting corrected financials or addressing each specific item that is incorrect in the financials and explaining what it should be would be addressing the inaccuracies. Handwaving away the issues that people bring up is definitely not addressing them.
posted by ssg at 8:54 AM on March 1 [9 favorites]

As far as I can tell, no one has addressed the precipitous drop in recurring donations and no one has given a timetable for sharing accurate financials. I think there are a couple conclusions to draw from this:

1) Until proven otherwise, we should probably assume that donations have dropped signifcantly.
2) The foundation is being financially mismanaged to the point where it is not even possible to generate accurate reporting.

Both of these things are pretty alarming.
posted by snofoam at 11:12 AM on March 1 [7 favorites]

Several months ago, while Jessamyn was wrapping up, the financials were estimated to give us the better part of a year (or six months) before it all ran out. Suffice it to say, there wasn't enough money to even begin to address the issue of an ED financially (by having a salary set aside for a year) and pay for all four mods (pay $250k).

I think this information was either in one of the last MetaTalks Jessamyn participated in as owner, or possibly another one also in that time period.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:10 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]

Right, on Nov 25 Jessamyn said the site had about six months worth of the then-current rate of expenses if no further income (contributions, google ad money, Amazon affiliate payments) came in. Presumably, some income is coming in, although we seem to see that it's rapidly declining. So that gets us to mid-May at minimum, but without accurate financials it's hard to say how much longer. given zero action by the staff and no visible action towards financial change by the board, all this back and forth will be for naught before the end of the year. I wish it wasn't so.
posted by donnagirl at 3:48 PM on March 1 [3 favorites]

Average monthly expenses for 2024 were $23,400 (per Bugbread's spreadsheet above) and the balance sheet loup posted shows $116,500 (after subtracting the funds the LLC has allocated to taxes), so that means we now have roughly five months of expenses in the bank.

The question that remains unanswered is what current revenue looks like. Maybe we have a matter of months before running out of money, maybe a year, maybe we're totally fine and can continue indefinitely. For whatever reason, the numbers we need are not being communicated here or simply aren't known.
posted by ssg at 4:01 PM on March 1 [2 favorites]

For whatever reason, the numbers we need are not being communicated here or simply aren't known.

It's not like we're talking about accounting for a few hundred dollars. It's a lot of money that pays wages for people. But those people are either unable or unwilling to say what's going on. Partial information is posted and then days, weeks, and months go by without staff answering questions that could have easily been anticipated by anyone.
posted by CtrlAltD at 4:14 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]

Catspajamas, I think both of your questions have been answered already.

Question 1: How much did the site spend on staff salaries in December 2024?
Answer 1: $26,810, according the to the P/L statement, which the staff is saying is correct.

Question 2: How much did the site spend on staff salaries in January 2025?
Answer 2: $1,227, according the to the P/L statement, which the staff is saying is correct. This number seems very, very low, but that's because the wages that would normally be paid in late January were paid in early February, as explained in the comment BB linked to, so they wouldn't appear in the January P/L statement.

I see that you found the answer to Q1, so that's taken care of. What is leading you to think that the number for Q2 is inaccurate and needs to be corrected?
posted by Bugbread at 7:35 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]

snofoam: "1) Until proven otherwise, we should probably assume that donations have dropped signifcantly.
2) The foundation is being financially mismanaged to the point where it is not even possible to generate accurate reporting.

Both of these things are pretty alarming."

I mean, if you want to react to any ambiguity, oversight, or delayed response with the worst possible assumption of what's going on, we can't stop you, but doing that is going to come out looking pretty silly when that's not actually what's going on.

Notes from our treasurer when I pinged him with these concerns:

- Cash on hand is almost exactly the same as at the handoff last year (i.e., no $10k monthly short fall)
- AWS and payroll were just done (those payments were still outstanding at the handover), so if anything we're slightly ahead
- We are down on monthly recurring contributions, but it's a slow erosion, not a dramatic fall (about $50/mo on average)
- Cash on hand as of February 28th was $140,372.83
- at the same time in 2024, total cash on hand was $126,784.57
- The source of the apparent discrepancy seems to be cash left in our Paypal account, since at the time the report was run there was $13,466.90 in the Paypal account waiting to be transferred, and this is not linked to our Quickbooks. So unless the transfer to the bank is done before the report is run, it’ll look like there’s a big discrepancy.

We are switching to a different and much easier-to-work-with bank and payroll processor, so these temporary kinks should be fully worked out by the next report. As for net numbers, I don't have the exact figures as I write this, but given cash on hand has been steady over the last couple months and we just identified ~$20k in AWS savings (with potential further savings from that + more efficient hosting), the general outlook is good.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:01 PM on March 1 [5 favorites]

It took over a week and people asking dozens of times for someone to come in and reveal that the financials being shared are totally inaccurate because they don’t include one of the accounts, which happened to include most of the monthly donations? Someone looks pretty fucking silly, and it isn’t any of the people asking for clarification about why the finances looked so bad in the reporting provided by the site. What a joke.
posted by snofoam at 2:06 AM on March 2 [13 favorites]

Now, now, no need to get competitive. There's plenty of room for everyone to look silly.
posted by Bugbread at 4:18 AM on March 2 [3 favorites]

Loup is discussing coverage during EMEA hours with the board.

What is EMEA?
posted by NotLost at 5:48 AM on March 2

Europe, Middle East, and Asia, I believe.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:01 AM on March 2 [1 favorite]

and Africa. It's a term in widespread use globally not something loup made up, one can google it. The equivalent term that includes Asia is APAC.
posted by phunniemee at 7:00 AM on March 2 [4 favorites]

Ah, thank you, that was the one I couldn't remember for sure.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 7:04 AM on March 2

I think it's best that we use terms that don't need to be googled:
1) Let's make things easier on the readers in the first place.
2) Sometimes google can lead to multiple results, or not the one that is intended.

I wasn't insinuating that anyone made up a term.
posted by NotLost at 8:36 AM on March 2

There's plenty of room for everyone to look silly.

insert image of bowl overflowing with creamed corn held by enormous hands

scandalously big hands
posted by ginger.beef at 8:44 AM on March 2 [3 favorites]

And what's the problem with asking the meaning of something? There was no ill intent or ill expression.
posted by NotLost at 8:47 AM on March 2

I mean, if you want to react to any ambiguity, oversight, or delayed response with the worst possible assumption of what's going on, we can't stop you, but doing that is going to come out looking pretty silly when that's not actually what's going on.

People here have been trying to figure out the financial state of the organization based on the posted financials. Lots of people have asked questions that could be answered very easily by staff, but have been ignored. I don't think people are making the worst possible assumptions, they are trying their best to interpret the only information they have been given.

People are genuinely concerned about the financial state of the organization, because they care about MetaFilter. Treating those people like they're silly because they try to make sense of conflicting information doesn't seem very nice.

And people here could relevant experience that could be helpful (I definitely do when it comes to non-profit financials), but this thread and previous threads have only served to alienate people.

I get that updating the members on financials isn't a priority for the board, but if we're going to have monthly financial updates, they have to be accurate. If they aren't, it's honestly worse than no update at all. It's a waste of time to post them and it's a waste of time for us to read them.
posted by ssg at 8:58 AM on March 2 [25 favorites]

ssg: "I don't think people are making the worst possible assumptions"

I guess a lot hangs on how you define "worst possible" and "significantly", but that quote was specifically with respect to this statement:

"1) Until proven otherwise, we should probably assume that donations have dropped signifcantly.
2) The foundation is being financially mismanaged to the point where it is not even possible to generate accurate reporting."

I don't think assumption 2 is the worst possible assumption. I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption.
But characterizing this decline in donations as "dropp[ing] significantly" doesn't feel reasonable to me. "Significantly" is a fuzzy term, so I certainly can't say that statement's wrong, but when I hear "significantly" I imagine a much more dramatic chart than that one.
posted by Bugbread at 2:27 PM on March 2

Bugbread, I think your chart includes the $6k in one time donations included in January's P&L that were actually goFundMe donations from 4-6 months ago. It just so happens that those cancel out of the reported drop in monthly donations, which also turns out to not be accurate.

But there is clearly a significant problem in accounting practices when the timing of the movement of funds between the organization's accounts leads to incorrect financial reporting. It's very strange not to recognize revenue just because it happens to be in a Paypal account instead of a bank account.
posted by ssg at 3:06 PM on March 2 [4 favorites]

Answer 2: $1,227, according the to the P/L statement, which the staff is saying is correct. This number seems very, very low, but that's because the wages that would normally be paid in late January were paid in early February

The $1,227 remains not just low but outright bizarre, particularly since the time period for which it applies remains unclear, for no good reason I can see. I may have missed it, but has anyone on the board or staff clarified to what date in January that very small "contractors/consultants" line item is supposed to have covered? How often/on what dates do staff get paid in usual months? When was that $1,227 paid out? given the typical range of staff pay of $16k-26K per month, it's hard to imagine a time period where $1,227 would make sense even after the vague explanations we've been given amid promises for it all to be cleared up on the February statement in 3 weeks.
posted by catspajamas at 3:08 PM on March 2 [4 favorites]

Ssg: Whoops! I totally missed that go Fund Me thing! Thanks.

Here are two charts that reflect that.
In this one, I spread out the $6,000 evenly over the period from June to January.
In this one, I had it taper off steadily from June to January.

(There is almost no difference between them, but I just wanted to be complete)

So, yeah, there is definitely a big drop in January that I was overlooking.

All that said, given the specific type of bad accounting we've seen so far, I find it highly unlikely that the data from January, which appears really anomalous, is actually very good data and it's best to make assumptions about donations based on it. In a company that generally had good accounting reports, I think that assumption would be warranted. Or if there were two successive periods showing the same trend, I think that assumption would be warranted. Right now, I think it's just slightly too early to make any assumption about donations.

I think if March's figures are low, then we can, indeed, assume going forward that there has been a significant decline in donations.
However, if March's figures are high, I don't think that, conversely, it would be fair to assume that there wasn't a decline and that January was an anomaly. Basically, we'd be in a "maybe January was anomalously low but February is accurate, but on the other hand maybe January was accurate and February was anomalously high" situation, so we'd need March to make a best-out-of-three determination.
posted by Bugbread at 4:00 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]

Catspajamas, remember that that line is not "Mod pay" but "Contractors/consulting pay." Mods and admins make up the biggest chunk, but there are also other folks getting paid for smaller one-off projects (for example, I believe kirkaracha's getting paid for his site redesign work (I certainly hope he's getting paid)). I would assume that kind of pay (and also payments to lawyers or whatnot) would all fall in this category.
posted by Bugbread at 4:06 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]

"I think if March's figures are low..." ← Sorry, throughout most of that paragraph, by "March's figures" I meant "February's figures" (in my head I was thinking "the figures that will come out this month (March) which are the figures for February" and my mental wires crossed.
posted by Bugbread at 4:09 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]

Bugbread, Rhaomi addressed the apparent fall in monthly donations above. It seems that the P&L reports are not showing the actual amount of monthly donations, but only the amount of monthly donations that have been transferred to the bank account (and that transfer was behind schedule in this case). So it doesn't seem like there is a significant drop in monthly donations (though we haven't been given a real number yet).

This is exactly the kind of thing that I'm referring to when I say that posting financials like these is worse than useless. It just wastes everyone's time trying to figure out what they might mean only for us to be told much later, essentially, that the financials are just wonky and we shouldn't pay any attention to them.
posted by ssg at 4:19 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]

Not to belabor the point, but not being able to accurately report on financials is, in and of itself, financial mismanagement. As seen in the last few comments, revenue finally appearing months after the fact (gofundme) almost hid the fact that current revenue (paypal) wasn’t even appearing in the reporting. Overlooking or misreporting thousands or 10k+ of donations just not what I personally consider acceptable.
posted by snofoam at 4:23 PM on March 2 [13 favorites]

Back of the envelope, the site was paying $20k a year to Amazon to store on the order of 450TB in backup data? Is that right? Jessamyn and Loup and Frimble and previously cortex saw that $1500 bill every month and said "Yep, seems about right!"?

Holy fuck. $20,000/year of user donations were just set on fire? For years?
posted by bowbeacon at 4:24 PM on March 2 [10 favorites]

I don't want to bang this drum too hard, but I just want to be sure that anyone who cares truly understands that a site like this should cost $1000-2000 per year to host on the internet. I don't know what a Coldfusion license costs, but maybe add another grand to that total for ColdFusion. Paying more that that is simply not really ok.
posted by bowbeacon at 4:27 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]

given the typical range of staff pay of $16k-26K per month, it's hard to imagine a time period where $1,227 would make sense even after the vague explanations we've been given amid promises for it all to be cleared up on the February statement in 3 weeks.
It makes sense if staff are not being paid when they should be. The amount of the discrepancy looks exactly like staff not being paid for some time, then suddenly being paid a bunch all at once. I hope not, but that's what it looks like.
posted by dg at 4:30 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]

Not to nitpick, but it seems like the hosting costs are close to $4k monthly.
posted by snofoam at 4:32 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]

Right, which is, to not put too fine a point on it, fucking insane.
posted by bowbeacon at 4:33 PM on March 2 [4 favorites]

Dg: The fact that the number is way lower than $16K-$26K is precisely because of that. Loup wrote "the December payroll went out earlier and and the January one went out in the first days of February."
posted by Bugbread at 4:38 PM on March 2

> Holy fuck. $20,000/year of user donations were just set on fire? For years?

if it were set on fire it would at least be gone, which would have been better than giving it to amazon, in my book. nothing this organization does or has been doing for years can really shock me anymore. a case study in how to torture a vibrant community to death. i hope someone, somewhere, someday can learn from our mistakes.
posted by glonous keming at 8:41 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]

The ~$1.5k/mo AWS backup savings sound similar to the ~$1.5k/mo AWS backup savings that were identified as a possibility back in October 2022 (last para).
posted by Klipspringer at 12:27 PM on March 4 [12 favorites]

So roughly $45k in identified unnecessary spending of user donations? Come on, guys. What's even happening over there?
posted by bowbeacon at 1:44 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]

The ~$1.5k/mo AWS backup savings sound similar to the ~$1.5k/mo AWS backup savings that were identified as a possibility back in October 2022 (last para).

yo what the fuck
posted by phunniemee at 2:08 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]

Twelve days, 220 comments and still the staff are unwilling or unable to answer basic questions about the financial state of the site. Simply disgraceful.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:08 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]

Wasting loads of money on AWS is bad, but honestly many people feel that there are some much bigger potential savings possible, and these will need to be taken in order to pay someone to manage the foundation.
posted by snofoam at 6:22 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]

I’m really sad to say it but I have cancelled the recurring donation I’ve held since 2018. Something needs to change.
posted by samthemander at 3:03 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]

Hi, Rhaomi, Brandon or anyone else on the board/staff. When Rhaomi posted this 3 weeks ago:

We actually were just looking at the AWS spend a few days ago (with help from Frayed Knot), and there are *significant* further savings to be found there which shouldn't impact the site negatively. Basically an overzealous backup schedule that was allocating excessive storage on an unnecessary tier. Frimble is working on this now, but it should open up options that weren't really in reach before, which is great news but requires some rethinking. Stay tuned~

were they referring to the same savings referred to in aielen's comment from October 25, 2022?

To clarify, the site hosting expenses...are $4k/month....AWS hosting expenses may be reduced to about $2.5k/month for November onwards, by deleting backups that are already mirrored. (This reduction to ~$2.5k/month is new and recent information that just came in, and has not been factored into this post's report/scenarios.)

Is it correct to assume the $1.5k/month extra expense for unnecessarily overzealous backups identified in October 2022 was not reduced back then? (Looking at the P&L line items for hosting over the last year, it certainly seems that way.) And is the "significant further savings" you referred to simply the site finally getting around to correct what should have been corrected back in 2022, but wasn't, until Frayed Knot brought the savings to staff/board attention again recently?

The answer to that seems important, because if indeed the site continued to use member contributions to pay a needlessly large fee to AWS for the last *2 and a half years* after the error was identified, that's something members definitely need to know about, and maybe even (gasp) hold someone accountable for. I understand you're all busy, but when one of you gets a moment a direct answer to that question would, I'm sure, be appreciated.
posted by catspajamas at 11:53 AM on March 7 [7 favorites]

Left a link to above questions on Slack, will be on shift in a few hours and can answer non financial/p&l questions.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:07 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]

catspajamas: "were they referring to the same savings referred to in aielen's comment from October 25, 2022?"

I wasn't involved in the tech side of things at the time, so I don't know if she was talking about exactly the same issue, but her comment projected taking hosting costs from $4k down to $2.5k. Frayed_Knot, meanwhile, found that current hosting spend was $2k, so by the point her target had already been exceeded. His recommended changes brought total storage down to 17TB, which by my math should be around $500/mo. He also said it was a very common configuration error he's seen on other AWS setups. I've had minimal experience poking around the AWS dashboard for other projects myself, but it can get very arcane, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was some obscure setting that caused costs to mount in a hard-to-diagnose way. We're getting him more access to the backend to see if there are more savings to be found, or at least ways to prevent this kind of problem from recurring.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:31 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]

brought total storage down to 17TB

What the actual fuck.
posted by automatronic at 1:43 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]

automatronic: "What the actual fuck."

A whole-site backup is ~84gB, which sounds absurd for an all-text site, but some back-of-the-envelope math shows is within expectations; quoting from the internal discussion at the time:

- 84gB is roughly 84 billion characters (a bit less due to encoding, but let's ballpark)
- Infodumpster info says my average comment length is ~750 characters (short paragraph)
- That divides out to roughly 120 million comments
- Adding up the latest post IDs for all subsites shows 666k total posts
- THAT divides out to ~168 comments per post

On the high side, but then that data also includes post bodies, UI, MeMail, favorites, profile data, uploaded music, and miscellaneous backend stuff. So it's probably about right.

The backup size is normal; the problem was that they were happening too frequently and being kept in an inefficient tier for too long. A lot of redundant data has now been deleted and the backup schedule cut way down (daily at first, then spaced further apart over time). That's just a first step, and there are likely more opportunities to cut down on costs without disrupting the site.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:57 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]

Is nothing compressed, then? Or incremental?

Just ~200 independently stored dumps at 84gB each, each of which must be 99% the exact same data, most of it extremely compressible text?
posted by automatronic at 2:16 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]

Correct, as far as I could tell nothing was compressed, nothing was incremental. It was a daily, full backup going all the way back to 2011-Dec-29.

As Rhaomi said, I've seen this before. Person A sets up the backup script, and figure "meh, let's just keep everything. Much safer." Fast forward years later, Person A is either long gone or never looks at the AWS Billing details, "everything" is now measured in Terrabytes, and no one catches the waste. This kind of thing keeps entire AWS Consultancies in business.

I've made other recommendations to Rhaomi and Frimble which both take more time to implement and save less money right now, so are pending. And I am looking into potential savings outside of S3, as well.

To clarify one of Rhaomi's point, the total AWS bill for Metafilter in Dec 2024 was roughly US$4,000, about $2,000 of which was S3. That $2,000 should fall to $500 for the month of March on -- and we'll see some reduction in Feb, as well, as the data was deleted somewhere around Feb 15. All told, it's about $18,000 per year in savings.
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:45 PM on March 7 [14 favorites]

i am not attacking anyone but i do want to leave a comment here that will be insufficient to convey how absolutely 100% mindblown i continue to be regarding this information about the backups.
posted by glonous keming at 2:46 PM on March 7 [17 favorites]

Thank you Frayed Knot was diving in and helping the site on saving money, it's deeply appreciated!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:20 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]

I'm also not attacking anyone, but holy fuck.
posted by bowbeacon at 4:51 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]

I don't know what you do to rebuild trust to a level where you can ever have a fundraiser again, but it's gonna be on the order of sweeping change and a fuckton of follow through. Whatever capital MetaFilter once possessed in either cash or community goodwill has been pissed away over the last few years. (Is this an attack or just a fact? Can facts attack you? Can we still be permaband for saying that someone completely failed at their obligations to the community here?)
posted by donnagirl at 5:13 PM on March 7 [11 favorites]

Rhaomi: but her comment projected taking hosting costs from $4k down to $2.5k. Frayed_Knot, meanwhile, found that current hosting spend was $2k, so by the point her target had already been exceeded

Frayed Knot: the total AWS bill for Metafilter in Dec 2024 was roughly US$4,000, about $2,000 of which was S3.

So, to go back to catspajamas' point... the savings were identifed in October 2022 but not actioned?


I ask again - how are actions being tracked by the board and their delegates? Cos clearly shit is slipping through the cracks.
posted by coriolisdave at 5:22 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]

Just ~200 independently stored dumps at 84gB each

Someone from some other place where people talk about MetaFilter pointed out that the data dump for all of Wikipedia in English is less than 25gB. I refuse to believe we are more than three times the size of Wikipedia in any way.
posted by donnagirl at 5:25 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]

Oh wait I thought of one, three times as many creamed corn references. Sorry friends, I was wrong.
posted by donnagirl at 5:25 PM on March 7

donnagirl: the 25gB Wikipedia number is compressed data. Part of the problem here is that the MeFi backups are apparently being stored uncompressed.
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:31 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]

The 25gB wikipedia dump is compressed.

dumps.wikipedia.org sez:

"pages-articles-multistream.xml.bz2 – Current revisions only, no talk or user pages; this is probably what you want, and is over 19 gB compressed (expands to over 86 gB when decompressed)."
posted by bowbeacon at 5:32 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]

over 19 gB compressed (expands to over 86 gB when decompressed)

So what you're saying is... we've got the same amount of text as Wikipedia, but instead of creating one of the great communal efforts of the world instead we've got...


...whatever this is, now.
posted by coriolisdave at 5:37 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]

Yes, I get that it's compressed. I, unlike apparently anyone who has ever worked for MetaFilter, know what a zip file is. My point stands, Wikipedia backups are less than a third the size of ours, meaning something is so stupidly wrong here that I can't even figure out what tf it is.
posted by donnagirl at 5:38 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]

given the level of historic incompetence on display here can we crowdfund a third-party audit of both the technology/IT practices and the financials?
posted by glonous keming at 5:42 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]

given the level of historic incompetence on display here can we crowdfund a third-party audit of both the technology/IT practices and the financials?

YES PLEASE
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:44 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]

No. Don't crowdfund anything. Just write a reasonable system that doesn't require a Coldfusion license, and host it on a $200/month VPS, just like every other website does in 2025. This is a solved problem, and doesn't require a budget or fundraiser. The budget should be 1% the size that it is! The whole idea of having an executive director or whatever is just insane. This is a small website.
posted by bowbeacon at 5:46 PM on March 7 [15 favorites]

bowbeacon: i think an audit of the finances is actually a bigger deal than an audit of the tech. given the fact that apparently nobody on staff or the interim board can manage to answer questions about the state of the accounts, there really desperately needs to be some kind of independent financial audit that involves an actual accountant.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:02 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]

I'm just saying they should get rid of the finances. Donate the remaining $100 grand or whatever to Doctors without Borders, get a Digital Ocean droplet, and turn off the checkbook.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:11 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]

Frayed_Knot, meanwhile, found that current hosting spend was $2k

That doesn't square with the 2024 P&L statements, which consistently show hosting costs as $3400-3900 per month.

the total AWS bill for Metafilter in Dec 2024 was roughly US$4,000, about $2,000 of which was S3. That $2,000 should fall to $500 for the month of March on

Ok, that makes more sense.

Thank you Frayed Knot was diving in and helping the site on saving money, it's deeply appreciated!

We should probably also thank aielen, who first pointed out a similar problem with the backups in October 2022.
posted by catspajamas at 5:48 AM on March 8 [10 favorites]

Honestly I can appreciate that AWS configuration problems can happen; I’m not sure any of the staff are technical experts in this area. I’m really glad it’s being resolved.
posted by samthemander at 3:18 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]

Coming to this late, but on the "why so big / why not compressed" thing:

that data also includes post bodies, UI, MeMail, favorites, profile data, uploaded music, and miscellaneous backend stuff.

"Uploaded music" stands out here: audio is big and MP3 audio isn't further compressible with (g)zip etc. There almost 10K MeFi Music postids now; it would not be at all surprising if music is far bigger than all the rest of it put together.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 2:58 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]

It would, however, be surprising if the same music file were backed up multiple times, unchanged from previous backups.
posted by one for the books at 11:38 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]

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