Comments on: How to Blogetize Your Money http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/ Personality Prototype Wed, 16 May 2012 22:58:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: sam http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-762 sam Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:47:07 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-762 ===== Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis? ===== Not me! :-D Now that I think of it, I guess I know the sites you describe, or I know of them. I don't stick around long enough to care or get bothered by them, but they seem harmless. No one is getting robbed, and the trillion dollar ad industry can endure potholes like this without illegitimizing itself. I have never subscribed to any pay-per-post of paid content site (that stuff washes up on Usenet eventually anyway) but I can understand the mentality of those who do. It feels like you're getting in on something, like I used to feel I was getting in on something by reading 2600 or subscribing to Fortean Times. I have seen some of the content people pay for, and my reaction is usually 'ewwww,' but as long as no one's getting robbed and if the market can bear it then it's all good. The sites that annoy me are these automated link farms leech search results from legitimate search engine, only to spray popups and other ad-only pages at you on your way out: http://jello.big.com/ Then again, these sites make *SHITLOADS* of money, and I guess no one's getting hurt by them. Hmmm, maybe it's time to turn to the dark side. ;) =====
Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis?
=====

Not me! :-D
Now that I think of it, I guess I know the sites you describe, or I know of them. I don’t stick around long enough to care or get bothered by them, but they seem harmless. No one is getting robbed, and the trillion dollar ad industry can endure potholes like this without illegitimizing itself. I have never subscribed to any pay-per-post of paid content site (that stuff washes up on Usenet eventually anyway) but I can understand the mentality of those who do. It feels like you’re getting in on something, like I used to feel I was getting in on something by reading 2600 or subscribing to Fortean Times. I have seen some of the content people pay for, and my reaction is usually ‘ewwww,’ but as long as no one’s getting robbed and if the market can bear it then it’s all good.

The sites that annoy me are these automated link farms leech search results from legitimate search engine, only to spray popups and other ad-only pages at you on your way out: http://jello.big.com/
Then again, these sites make *SHITLOADS* of money, and I guess no one’s getting hurt by them. Hmmm, maybe it’s time to turn to the dark side. ;)

]]> By: sam http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2767 sam Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:47:00 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-2767 ===== Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis? ===== Not me! :-D Now that I think of it, I guess I know the sites you describe, or I know of them. I don't stick around long enough to care or get bothered by them, but they seem harmless. No one is getting robbed, and the trillion dollar ad industry can endure potholes like this without illegitimizing itself. I have never subscribed to any pay-per-post of paid content site (that stuff washes up on Usenet eventually anyway) but I can understand the mentality of those who do. It feels like you're getting in on something, like I used to feel I was getting in on something by reading 2600 or subscribing to Fortean Times. I have seen some of the content people pay for, and my reaction is usually 'ewwww,' but as long as no one's getting robbed and if the market can bear it then it's all good. The sites that annoy me are these automated link farms leech search results from legitimate search engine, only to spray popups and other ad-only pages at you on your way out: http://jello.big.com/ Then again, these sites make *SHITLOADS* of money, and I guess no one's getting hurt by them. Hmmm, maybe it's time to turn to the dark side. ;) =====
Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis?
=====

Not me! :-D
Now that I think of it, I guess I know the sites you describe, or I know of them. I don’t stick around long enough to care or get bothered by them, but they seem harmless. No one is getting robbed, and the trillion dollar ad industry can endure potholes like this without illegitimizing itself. I have never subscribed to any pay-per-post of paid content site (that stuff washes up on Usenet eventually anyway) but I can understand the mentality of those who do. It feels like you’re getting in on something, like I used to feel I was getting in on something by reading 2600 or subscribing to Fortean Times. I have seen some of the content people pay for, and my reaction is usually ‘ewwww,’ but as long as no one’s getting robbed and if the market can bear it then it’s all good.

The sites that annoy me are these automated link farms leech search results from legitimate search engine, only to spray popups and other ad-only pages at you on your way out: http://jello.big.com/
Then again, these sites make *SHITLOADS* of money, and I guess no one’s getting hurt by them. Hmmm, maybe it’s time to turn to the dark side. ;)

]]> By: Candice http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-761 Candice Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:02:42 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-761 You're still not talking about the same sites here. Capitalizing on success by offering something of value (i.e. JenniCam)... not at all annoying (and not instantly irrelevant, but no -- not part of the same culture of freely exchanged ideas anymore). Adding an ad or two to cover costs and maybe earn a little extra... eh, passable. Starting a website and having making money as your number one priority... slightly more annoying, but not angering in and of itself. But then... starting a website and having making money as your number one priority, and then pretending that you're offering something of value to the world and that the site has any other purpose... Very damned annoying. There are always exceptions, but in most of these cases, these sites are blights upon the internet. Keyword-heavy, ad-riddled "niche" sites are bad, and PayPerPost type sites are <em>especially</em> bad. You can just feel the writer trying to shoehorn their life into the constraints of the post they're required to write. They usually have a disclosure statement on their sites, and you can generally pick out which links were sponsored, but it's painful, painful writing. They writers are definitely stretching -- if the posts were <em>really</em> relevant, they wouldn't stick out like such a sore thumb. And they always do. Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis? And how do the bloggers figure that they're actually contributing something worthwhile? You’re still not talking about the same sites here. Capitalizing on success by offering something of value (i.e. JenniCam)… not at all annoying (and not instantly irrelevant, but no — not part of the same culture of freely exchanged ideas anymore). Adding an ad or two to cover costs and maybe earn a little extra… eh, passable. Starting a website and having making money as your number one priority… slightly more annoying, but not angering in and of itself. But then… starting a website and having making money as your number one priority, and then pretending that you’re offering something of value to the world and that the site has any other purpose… Very damned annoying. There are always exceptions, but in most of these cases, these sites are blights upon the internet. Keyword-heavy, ad-riddled “niche” sites are bad, and PayPerPost type sites are especially bad. You can just feel the writer trying to shoehorn their life into the constraints of the post they’re required to write. They usually have a disclosure statement on their sites, and you can generally pick out which links were sponsored, but it’s painful, painful writing. They writers are definitely stretching — if the posts were really relevant, they wouldn’t stick out like such a sore thumb. And they always do. Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis? And how do the bloggers figure that they’re actually contributing something worthwhile?

]]> By: Candice http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2766 Candice Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:02:00 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-2766 You're still not talking about the same sites here. Capitalizing on success by offering something of value (i.e. JenniCam)... not at all annoying (and not instantly irrelevant, but no -- not part of the same culture of freely exchanged ideas anymore). Adding an ad or two to cover costs and maybe earn a little extra... eh, passable. Starting a website and having making money as your number one priority... slightly more annoying, but not angering in and of itself. But then... starting a website and having making money as your number one priority, and then pretending that you're offering something of value to the world and that the site has any other purpose... Very damned annoying. There are always exceptions, but in most of these cases, these sites are blights upon the internet. Keyword-heavy, ad-riddled "niche" sites are bad, and PayPerPost type sites are <em>especially</em> bad. You can just feel the writer trying to shoehorn their life into the constraints of the post they're required to write. They usually have a disclosure statement on their sites, and you can generally pick out which links were sponsored, but it's painful, painful writing. They writers are definitely stretching -- if the posts were <em>really</em> relevant, they wouldn't stick out like such a sore thumb. And they always do. Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis? And how do the bloggers figure that they're actually contributing something worthwhile? You’re still not talking about the same sites here. Capitalizing on success by offering something of value (i.e. JenniCam)… not at all annoying (and not instantly irrelevant, but no — not part of the same culture of freely exchanged ideas anymore). Adding an ad or two to cover costs and maybe earn a little extra… eh, passable. Starting a website and having making money as your number one priority… slightly more annoying, but not angering in and of itself. But then… starting a website and having making money as your number one priority, and then pretending that you’re offering something of value to the world and that the site has any other purpose… Very damned annoying. There are always exceptions, but in most of these cases, these sites are blights upon the internet. Keyword-heavy, ad-riddled “niche” sites are bad, and PayPerPost type sites are especially bad. You can just feel the writer trying to shoehorn their life into the constraints of the post they’re required to write. They usually have a disclosure statement on their sites, and you can generally pick out which links were sponsored, but it’s painful, painful writing. They writers are definitely stretching — if the posts were really relevant, they wouldn’t stick out like such a sore thumb. And they always do. Who sticks around to read these sites on a regular basis? And how do the bloggers figure that they’re actually contributing something worthwhile?

]]> By: sam http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-760 sam Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:41:03 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-760 ===== If you start something “free” inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don’t belong in that culture any more. ===== This does not quite add up for me, at least not in my experience -- though maybe I am missing a clue from that fact that you put "free" in quotes. If a successful web site costs someone hundreds of dollars a month to maintain and keep free for site visitors, then it is not exactly free. Free for you but not for me. So if you "don't belong in that culture any more" then where do you go? Why should success make you irrelevant? I think if one can rise up from obscurity and still keep their composure and their voice (or whatever, I'm veering into platitudes here for no good reason) then hooray for them. I personally have been happy for people I've known who find a way to make either an honest income or a public reputation from their web projects. I was happy for that girl Jenni, of the JenniCam (Jennifer Ringley). I didn't know her but was happy for her notoriety, and happy to see someone who understood the new medium of the web and found a way to do something that was, at the time, not just unique but uniquely her. (Or so it seemed to me. As I said, I never knew the girl.) I was running home webcams myself in those days, in something of the same spirit as Jenni's always-on life cam. But she took it to a new level and I thought it was cool. Things change, of course, and a girl (or guy) who gets naked on their webcam is a cliché -- though getting naked was never Jenni's point, but it might as well have been. ===== The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it. ===== It depends how much traffic you get and how (or if) you value your audience. If you come up with a site that attracts a lot of drive-by traffic (i.e., the mis-directed clicks that are common) then you can probably get away with more obtrusive ads than on a site where you would want repeat visitors. Not that I recommend such an approach. Overdoing it with obnoxious ads is always bad in my book (and I never do it), but I have placed ads across thousands of my pages and never fielded a single complaint. I "blog" in glorious and intentional obscurity, though, and I do not bother with ads on those pages. It is true that a site drawing 100 pageviews a day will probably never make money from those or any type of ads, nor would it even be worth the effort spent placing them there. But When you start seeing 100,000 hits a day, and then double that, then the reality of keeping things free starts to change. I think the headline of "blogging" has somehow trivialized things in web land. I think the .plan file and the "finger" command constituted a blogging platform, supporting my belief that the Internet simply repeats itself under some new headline. I still don't miss the early and mid 1990s, though. ISPs sucked, modems sucked, the few big company web sites of any depth were just corporate wastelands. I do sort of miss the active scene in telnettable places, just because I like that interface better than point-and-click. =====
If you start something “free” inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don’t belong in that culture any more.
=====

This does not quite add up for me, at least not in my experience — though maybe I am missing a clue from that fact that you put “free” in quotes.

If a successful web site costs someone hundreds of dollars a month to maintain and keep free for site visitors, then it is not exactly free. Free for you but not for me. So if you “don’t belong in that culture any more” then where do you go? Why should success make you irrelevant? I think if one can rise up from obscurity and still keep their composure and their voice (or whatever, I’m veering into platitudes here for no good reason) then hooray for them. I personally have been happy for people I’ve known who find a way to make either an honest income or a public reputation from their web projects. I was happy for that girl Jenni, of the JenniCam (Jennifer Ringley). I didn’t know her but was happy for her notoriety, and happy to see someone who understood the new medium of the web and found a way to do something that was, at the time, not just unique but uniquely her. (Or so it seemed to me. As I said, I never knew the girl.) I was running home webcams myself in those days, in something of the same spirit as Jenni’s always-on life cam. But she took it to a new level and I thought it was cool. Things change, of course, and a girl (or guy) who gets naked on their webcam is a cliché — though getting naked was never Jenni’s point, but it might as well have been.

=====
The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it.
=====

It depends how much traffic you get and how (or if) you value your audience. If you come up with a site that attracts a lot of drive-by traffic (i.e., the mis-directed clicks that are common) then you can probably get away with more obtrusive ads than on a site where you would want repeat visitors. Not that I recommend such an approach. Overdoing it with obnoxious ads is always bad in my book (and I never do it), but I have placed ads across thousands of my pages and never fielded a single complaint. I “blog” in glorious and intentional obscurity, though, and I do not bother with ads on those pages.

It is true that a site drawing 100 pageviews a day will probably never make money from those or any type of ads, nor would it even be worth the effort spent placing them there. But When you start seeing 100,000 hits a day, and then double that, then the reality of keeping things free starts to change.

I think the headline of “blogging” has somehow trivialized things in web land. I think the .plan file and the “finger” command constituted a blogging platform, supporting my belief that the Internet simply repeats itself under some new headline. I still don’t miss the early and mid 1990s, though. ISPs sucked, modems sucked, the few big company web sites of any depth were just corporate wastelands. I do sort of miss the active scene in telnettable places, just because I like that interface better than point-and-click.

]]> By: sam http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2765 sam Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:41:00 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-2765 ===== If you start something “free” inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don’t belong in that culture any more. ===== This does not quite add up for me, at least not in my experience -- though maybe I am missing a clue from that fact that you put "free" in quotes. If a successful web site costs someone hundreds of dollars a month to maintain and keep free for site visitors, then it is not exactly free. Free for you but not for me. So if you "don't belong in that culture any more" then where do you go? Why should success make you irrelevant? I think if one can rise up from obscurity and still keep their composure and their voice (or whatever, I'm veering into platitudes here for no good reason) then hooray for them. I personally have been happy for people I've known who find a way to make either an honest income or a public reputation from their web projects. I was happy for that girl Jenni, of the JenniCam (Jennifer Ringley). I didn't know her but was happy for her notoriety, and happy to see someone who understood the new medium of the web and found a way to do something that was, at the time, not just unique but uniquely her. (Or so it seemed to me. As I said, I never knew the girl.) I was running home webcams myself in those days, in something of the same spirit as Jenni's always-on life cam. But she took it to a new level and I thought it was cool. Things change, of course, and a girl (or guy) who gets naked on their webcam is a cliché -- though getting naked was never Jenni's point, but it might as well have been. ===== The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it. ===== It depends how much traffic you get and how (or if) you value your audience. If you come up with a site that attracts a lot of drive-by traffic (i.e., the mis-directed clicks that are common) then you can probably get away with more obtrusive ads than on a site where you would want repeat visitors. Not that I recommend such an approach. Overdoing it with obnoxious ads is always bad in my book (and I never do it), but I have placed ads across thousands of my pages and never fielded a single complaint. I "blog" in glorious and intentional obscurity, though, and I do not bother with ads on those pages. It is true that a site drawing 100 pageviews a day will probably never make money from those or any type of ads, nor would it even be worth the effort spent placing them there. But When you start seeing 100,000 hits a day, and then double that, then the reality of keeping things free starts to change. I think the headline of "blogging" has somehow trivialized things in web land. I think the .plan file and the "finger" command constituted a blogging platform, supporting my belief that the Internet simply repeats itself under some new headline. I still don't miss the early and mid 1990s, though. ISPs sucked, modems sucked, the few big company web sites of any depth were just corporate wastelands. I do sort of miss the active scene in telnettable places, just because I like that interface better than point-and-click. =====
If you start something “free” inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don’t belong in that culture any more.
=====

This does not quite add up for me, at least not in my experience — though maybe I am missing a clue from that fact that you put “free” in quotes.

If a successful web site costs someone hundreds of dollars a month to maintain and keep free for site visitors, then it is not exactly free. Free for you but not for me. So if you “don’t belong in that culture any more” then where do you go? Why should success make you irrelevant? I think if one can rise up from obscurity and still keep their composure and their voice (or whatever, I’m veering into platitudes here for no good reason) then hooray for them. I personally have been happy for people I’ve known who find a way to make either an honest income or a public reputation from their web projects. I was happy for that girl Jenni, of the JenniCam (Jennifer Ringley). I didn’t know her but was happy for her notoriety, and happy to see someone who understood the new medium of the web and found a way to do something that was, at the time, not just unique but uniquely her. (Or so it seemed to me. As I said, I never knew the girl.) I was running home webcams myself in those days, in something of the same spirit as Jenni’s always-on life cam. But she took it to a new level and I thought it was cool. Things change, of course, and a girl (or guy) who gets naked on their webcam is a cliché — though getting naked was never Jenni’s point, but it might as well have been.

=====
The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it.
=====

It depends how much traffic you get and how (or if) you value your audience. If you come up with a site that attracts a lot of drive-by traffic (i.e., the mis-directed clicks that are common) then you can probably get away with more obtrusive ads than on a site where you would want repeat visitors. Not that I recommend such an approach. Overdoing it with obnoxious ads is always bad in my book (and I never do it), but I have placed ads across thousands of my pages and never fielded a single complaint. I “blog” in glorious and intentional obscurity, though, and I do not bother with ads on those pages.

It is true that a site drawing 100 pageviews a day will probably never make money from those or any type of ads, nor would it even be worth the effort spent placing them there. But When you start seeing 100,000 hits a day, and then double that, then the reality of keeping things free starts to change.

I think the headline of “blogging” has somehow trivialized things in web land. I think the .plan file and the “finger” command constituted a blogging platform, supporting my belief that the Internet simply repeats itself under some new headline. I still don’t miss the early and mid 1990s, though. ISPs sucked, modems sucked, the few big company web sites of any depth were just corporate wastelands. I do sort of miss the active scene in telnettable places, just because I like that interface better than point-and-click.

]]> By: exarch http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-759 exarch Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:17:23 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-759 As the old saying goes: If it's free, take two. In other words, whenever there's an apparently (!) easy way to make money, someone's going to pervert it into a money-making scheme. The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it. The more money you want to make, the bigger the hassle for the visitor in finding any content inbetween your ads. So like the slow-loading websites of the internet anno 1994, any page with too much ads is just going to get closed right away. Especially those intrusive adds that actually prevent you from seeing the content underneath, or the ones with too much motion or flickering. As the old saying goes:
If it’s free, take two.

In other words, whenever there’s an apparently (!) easy way to make money, someone’s going to pervert it into a money-making scheme. The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it. The more money you want to make, the bigger the hassle for the visitor in finding any content inbetween your ads. So like the slow-loading websites of the internet anno 1994, any page with too much ads is just going to get closed right away. Especially those intrusive adds that actually prevent you from seeing the content underneath, or the ones with too much motion or flickering.

]]> By: exarch http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2764 exarch Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:17:00 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-2764 As the old saying goes: If it's free, take two. In other words, whenever there's an apparently (!) easy way to make money, someone's going to pervert it into a money-making scheme. The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it. The more money you want to make, the bigger the hassle for the visitor in finding any content inbetween your ads. So like the slow-loading websites of the internet anno 1994, any page with too much ads is just going to get closed right away. Especially those intrusive adds that actually prevent you from seeing the content underneath, or the ones with too much motion or flickering. As the old saying goes:
If it’s free, take two.

In other words, whenever there’s an apparently (!) easy way to make money, someone’s going to pervert it into a money-making scheme. The thing is, the amount of money you get for having a visitor clicking an ad, or just viewing/loading it, is really not worth the trouble compared to the discomfort that same viewer experiences if you overdo it. The more money you want to make, the bigger the hassle for the visitor in finding any content inbetween your ads. So like the slow-loading websites of the internet anno 1994, any page with too much ads is just going to get closed right away. Especially those intrusive adds that actually prevent you from seeing the content underneath, or the ones with too much motion or flickering.

]]> By: paddy http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-757 paddy Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:22:41 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-757 Actually I competely disagree with the guy above. If you start something "free" inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don't belong in that culture any more. The same thing always happens with commercialization of every domain, and I am sick to the teeth of it. An ad or two is fine, and hardly noticed, but my blogging takes me an hour per day maximum, on a free site. I don't intend to start charging for that. And if I ever become a "professional" blogger then you have my permission to shoot me. Actually I competely disagree with the guy above. If you start something “free” inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don’t belong in that culture any more. The same thing always happens with commercialization of every domain, and I am sick to the teeth of it.

An ad or two is fine, and hardly noticed, but my blogging takes me an hour per day maximum, on a free site. I don’t intend to start charging for that. And if I ever become a “professional” blogger then you have my permission to shoot me.

]]> By: paddy http://www.candicepayne.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2763 paddy Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:22:00 +0000 http://www.negativesmart.com/2007/09/11/how-to-blogetize-your-money/#comment-2763 Actually I competely disagree with the guy above. If you start something "free" inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don't belong in that culture any more. The same thing always happens with commercialization of every domain, and I am sick to the teeth of it. An ad or two is fine, and hardly noticed, but my blogging takes me an hour per day maximum, on a free site. I don't intend to start charging for that. And if I ever become a "professional" blogger then you have my permission to shoot me. Actually I competely disagree with the guy above. If you start something “free” inside a culture of free things (which I think the blog concept started as), and then decide to charge people for it, then you don’t belong in that culture any more. The same thing always happens with commercialization of every domain, and I am sick to the teeth of it.

An ad or two is fine, and hardly noticed, but my blogging takes me an hour per day maximum, on a free site. I don’t intend to start charging for that. And if I ever become a “professional” blogger then you have my permission to shoot me.

]]>