3 ms·

I agreed in email. There was no mention that the next (and I assume subsequent) editions would be paid for digital. To be honest, I hadn't heard of Hackers Mont

by cletus 16y ago

I agreed in email. There was no mention that the next (and I assume subsequent) editions would be paid for digital. To be honest, I hadn't heard of Hackers Monthly before being approached. The previous three issues were free so I simply assumed that would continue to be the case. Stackoverflow content is Creative Commons licensed (non-exclusively): http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/StackOverflow.com http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/StackOverflow.c... so the content could be reproduced with attribution anyway. Interestingly though, it's not the SO version that was published. I made some corrections to an expanded version on my blog: http://www.cforcoding.com/2009/07/plain-english-explanation-of-big-o.html http://www.cforcoding.com/2009/07/plain-english-explanation-... which obviously isn't CC-licensed. Print version costing money makes sense. It costs money to print things and send them to people. I think of it this way: ads on Stackoverflow pay for the site being there but any user can access the content. There is no registration or pay wall (like the evil hyphen site) so I'm happy to volunteer my time to answer people's questions. If SO were ever to construct a registration or pay wall I'd be gone in 0.13 seconds. This feels a little similar to me. While I appreciate the work that goes into doing a magazine layout this is now a commercial enterprise in all senses, at which point you need to pay your content creators, so it feels a little bait-and-switch to me. Or am I wrong?

bl4k 16y ago
I can't help but agree with you. In anything I write, I am either paid directly, have my own ads up against it, or I am contributing to a community with a broader goal of making information more readily and easily accessible - where there is a mutual benefit (everything from sites like SO to comments on HN, etc.) For somebody else to profit, in my eyes, is no different to the splogs that I spend too much time playing wack-a-mole with. The splogs could also argue that they are making the information (my content) more easily accessible and more organized. The hackermagazine is in a position where they could pay contributors, providing a quid-pro-quo through profit sharing. Most personal blogs make very little from advertising, so they could re-jig their model to provide a revenue source to good writers (who in-turn would have a further motivation to write good articles). It is a bit like the old trade monthlies and quarterlies who would take the best research papers or other contributions from a particular field and wrap them up in a magazine - only they would pay their contributors. If the publisher was not being sincere in their email, and this was a bait-n-switch, then that is a whole other matter that would require clarification from them.
bearwithclaws 16y ago
William, I assure you it's not a bait and switch. As somebody mentioned in Twitter today, I tweeted this 2 months ago (http://twitter.com/hackermonthly/status/17978114821 http://twitter.com/hackermonthly/status/17978114821): "The PDF version is free and always will be." That was the ideal plan. Make around $1 for each print copy sold. Sell some advertising. And hopefully I can get it thru month after month. No, that didn't work out well (I could show you some proof of the total revenues we made from the first 3 months). That's when I've decided to charge, for digital issue. Because it's either that, or the magazine dies somewhere down the road. I love the magazine. I love making it. I love it when readers tell me they enjoy reading it. And I wanted to keep on doing it for as long as possible. So I've got to make that tough decision, sooner rather than later. On the other hand, I DO plan on compensating the author, but I have to see how's the numbers performing for the first issue before making any promise.
- cletus 16y ago
  "Bait and switch" is stronger than I really mean. Don't get me wrong: I'm not pissed. Nor do I really feel cheated. I am just leery and perhaps oversensitive to freely contributing to paid content, which is what my example about SO and the evil hyphen site was about. I also take responsibility for not asking (which I didn't) nor doing more research than the cursory glance that I did. So even if I were pissed (which I'm not) it would be at least partly my fault. So let me just say for the record, in case anyone is under a misconception from what I've written so far: you've dealt with me courteously and professionally so I certainly wish you well on this. This is simply more about how my own philosophy in what I want to contribute to. Think of these comments as me thinking out loud (about that).
  - bl4k 16y ago
    It should have been made clear to you, and the other authors, in the email - regardless of if a tweet was sent out 2 weeks ago or not. The publisher can't assume that you read and follow everything they write. The entire agreement and disclosure should have been contained in that email to you, so you have nothing to apologize for (the fact that you didn't know that there was no free issue until you saw it here on HN says that there was a flaw in the communications process). As mentioned in the other comments, I hope the publisher can clarify and be much clearer in his emails to potential authors next time around (perhaps publishing an 'authors' page on the website with a clear FAQ - ie. if the authors can expect their own copy, etc.) I actually held out on insta-clicking to buy a copy when I read your comment (I still am), so clarification here will help everybody.

by cletus 16y ago

bl4k 16y ago

I can't help but agree with you. In anything I write, I am either paid directly, have my own ads up against it, or I am contributing to a community with a broader goal of making information more readily and easily accessible - where there is a mutual benefit (everything from sites like SO to comments on HN, etc.) For somebody else to profit, in my eyes, is no different to the splogs that I spend too much time playing wack-a-mole with. The splogs could also argue that they are making the information (my content) more easily accessible and more organized. The hackermagazine is in a position where they could pay contributors, providing a quid-pro-quo through profit sharing. Most personal blogs make very little from advertising, so they could re-jig their model to provide a revenue source to good writers (who in-turn would have a further motivation to write good articles). It is a bit like the old trade monthlies and quarterlies who would take the best research papers or other contributions from a particular field and wrap them up in a magazine - only they would pay their contributors. If the publisher was not being sincere in their email, and this was a bait-n-switch, then that is a whole other matter that would require clarification from them.

bearwithclaws 16y ago

William, I assure you it's not a bait and switch. As somebody mentioned in Twitter today, I tweeted this 2 months ago (http://twitter.com/hackermonthly/status/17978114821 http://twitter.com/hackermonthly/status/17978114821): "The PDF version is free and always will be." That was the ideal plan. Make around $1 for each print copy sold. Sell some advertising. And hopefully I can get it thru month after month. No, that didn't work out well (I could show you some proof of the total revenues we made from the first 3 months). That's when I've decided to charge, for digital issue. Because it's either that, or the magazine dies somewhere down the road. I love the magazine. I love making it. I love it when readers tell me they enjoy reading it. And I wanted to keep on doing it for as long as possible. So I've got to make that tough decision, sooner rather than later. On the other hand, I DO plan on compensating the author, but I have to see how's the numbers performing for the first issue before making any promise.

cletus 16y ago
"Bait and switch" is stronger than I really mean. Don't get me wrong: I'm not pissed. Nor do I really feel cheated. I am just leery and perhaps oversensitive to freely contributing to paid content, which is what my example about SO and the evil hyphen site was about. I also take responsibility for not asking (which I didn't) nor doing more research than the cursory glance that I did. So even if I were pissed (which I'm not) it would be at least partly my fault. So let me just say for the record, in case anyone is under a misconception from what I've written so far: you've dealt with me courteously and professionally so I certainly wish you well on this. This is simply more about how my own philosophy in what I want to contribute to. Think of these comments as me thinking out loud (about that).
- bl4k 16y ago
  It should have been made clear to you, and the other authors, in the email - regardless of if a tweet was sent out 2 weeks ago or not. The publisher can't assume that you read and follow everything they write. The entire agreement and disclosure should have been contained in that email to you, so you have nothing to apologize for (the fact that you didn't know that there was no free issue until you saw it here on HN says that there was a flaw in the communications process). As mentioned in the other comments, I hope the publisher can clarify and be much clearer in his emails to potential authors next time around (perhaps publishing an 'authors' page on the website with a clear FAQ - ie. if the authors can expect their own copy, etc.) I actually held out on insta-clicking to buy a copy when I read your comment (I still am), so clarification here will help everybody.