4 ms·

+1 Surely just a small handful of folks donating a few bucks through patreon or whatever, could keep the site ticking over with no ads.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
I have some insight into this and it's not good. Quite a while back I supported a charitable drive for a good cause on a well known site (you'll have heard of it). So, total donations were by about 20 people who really funded all of it, the total take for that was distinctly under £1000. At the time that site had between 2 and 4 million views a month. tl;dr few people will consider paying, far fewer will actually pay, even when it benefits them in the long term. What really upset me about that is if everyone who looked at that charitable request and had simply coughed up £1, and most of them could (sometimes you can't; I've been in that position so I understand) a real difference could have been made. If a charitable health-based cause pulls in so little cash, even fewer people will donate just to keep a site running.
nicbou 3y ago
If you tried running anything on user donations, you would see that users are not that generous. My website has generated quite a bit of goodwill in my community. It saves people considerable stress. Donations make up less than a percent of my income. About one in ten or twenty thousand visitors donates. It does not cover my grocery bill. Even readers I personally advise rarely donate.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Tbf for a static website without crazy levels of traffic, a weeks worth of groceries is probably more than hosting costs for a year.
  - davisoneee 3y ago
    It may be more than the _hosting_ cost, but what about the labour in actually generating that insight or maintaining and updating the content. Or what about recompense for, you know, providing such value in the first place? 'The bare minimum hosting cost' is a pretty poor bar for informational content.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      In the case of the Sheldon Brown website, the creator died 15 years ago. This is merely an archive of his work since no updates have been made since then.
      - wl 3y ago
        John Allen has been updating the website since 2010. It seems like most people think the site should have been left alone, though.
        dghlsakjg 3y ago
        Ah. I had no idea. I wonder what Sheldon would have wanted. I was always under the impression that he saw it as a community service. Despite working at a bike shop he never seemed to push parts sales in his writings.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      I took the parent's comment to be about recovering costs of operation, not supporting oneself. I think its entirely possible to recover the costs of a hobby that does public good through donations. Making a reasonable wage (especially by software dev standards) is another matter entirely.
  - nicbou 3y ago
    The website costs 10€ a month to keep alive. Unfortunately its author also needs to be kept alive.
    - Scoundreller 3y ago
      the author has been dead for 15 years, though others have shared that some updates have been done over the years
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  Everyone likes to say they’d contribute - but the percentage of people who are actually willing to put there hands in their pockets is minuscule.
- bacon_waffle 3y ago
  I'm sure that I'm not the only person in this thread, who spent many hours absorbing content from this free resource as a cash-strapped cyclist back in the day, and who now makes enough money in an hour or two to run this site for a year. Donations seem to do fine for my local makerspace, and local cycling advocacy group. Maybe this site, which for a lot of people would amount to an online memorial, is somehow different?

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

I have some insight into this and it's not good. Quite a while back I supported a charitable drive for a good cause on a well known site (you'll have heard of it). So, total donations were by about 20 people who really funded all of it, the total take for that was distinctly under £1000. At the time that site had between 2 and 4 million views a month. tl;dr few people will consider paying, far fewer will actually pay, even when it benefits them in the long term. What really upset me about that is if everyone who looked at that charitable request and had simply coughed up £1, and most of them could (sometimes you can't; I've been in that position so I understand) a real difference could have been made. If a charitable health-based cause pulls in so little cash, even fewer people will donate just to keep a site running.

nicbou 3y ago

If you tried running anything on user donations, you would see that users are not that generous. My website has generated quite a bit of goodwill in my community. It saves people considerable stress. Donations make up less than a percent of my income. About one in ten or twenty thousand visitors donates. It does not cover my grocery bill. Even readers I personally advise rarely donate.

bawolff 3y ago
Tbf for a static website without crazy levels of traffic, a weeks worth of groceries is probably more than hosting costs for a year.
- davisoneee 3y ago
  It may be more than the _hosting_ cost, but what about the labour in actually generating that insight or maintaining and updating the content. Or what about recompense for, you know, providing such value in the first place? 'The bare minimum hosting cost' is a pretty poor bar for informational content.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    In the case of the Sheldon Brown website, the creator died 15 years ago. This is merely an archive of his work since no updates have been made since then.
    - wl 3y ago
      John Allen has been updating the website since 2010. It seems like most people think the site should have been left alone, though.
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        Ah. I had no idea. I wonder what Sheldon would have wanted. I was always under the impression that he saw it as a community service. Despite working at a bike shop he never seemed to push parts sales in his writings.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I took the parent's comment to be about recovering costs of operation, not supporting oneself. I think its entirely possible to recover the costs of a hobby that does public good through donations. Making a reasonable wage (especially by software dev standards) is another matter entirely.
- nicbou 3y ago
  The website costs 10€ a month to keep alive. Unfortunately its author also needs to be kept alive.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    the author has been dead for 15 years, though others have shared that some updates have been done over the years
iamflimflam1 3y ago
Everyone likes to say they’d contribute - but the percentage of people who are actually willing to put there hands in their pockets is minuscule.
bacon_waffle 3y ago
I'm sure that I'm not the only person in this thread, who spent many hours absorbing content from this free resource as a cash-strapped cyclist back in the day, and who now makes enough money in an hour or two to run this site for a year. Donations seem to do fine for my local makerspace, and local cycling advocacy group. Maybe this site, which for a lot of people would amount to an online memorial, is somehow different?