Earlier today I received an email that notified me of a reply to this thread.  The reply, in its entirety, was included in the email but when I came to this site it was gone.  I can only assume that the author, Kevin, had second thoughts about what he wrote and deleted it.

Not that he wrote anything wrong because he didn't but he did take me to task for my comments and that's certainly fair.  Oddly enough I enjoyed the passion he put forth in his post.  I'll respect his privacy and not repeat what he said, but I did want to address a few of his points.

Kevin, I didn't insult your intelligence. You are obviously a bright guy with a lot on the ball but I think you are a but sensitive about this and are taking comments as some kind of assault on your character / intelligence.  Believe me, if I wanted to harass you or insult you, I wouldn't tap dance around it.  It would come out like a freight train.  So please remove that notion from your mind.

Sites take time and while we may start them as a hobby, once they gain an audience, as your site has done,  then they take on a life of their own.  So if you lose interest, passion or whatever you want to call it and cease to keep the site updated, then you do a disservice to your readers and to the effort that you have put forth to take the site as far as it has gone.

And I stand by my statement that topic moderation on a site like fortworthology.com is a snap, because it is.   However you have to take personal feelings out of the equation and I get the feeling that would be difficult for you. So let me give you a tip.  FInd a loyal reader that you trust and empower him / her as a moderator.   That little bit of help can be invaluable and free you up for bigger and better things.

Wes, we wish you had the time and patience to read what Dismuke said too, it would be very good for you.  The Board Guidelines and Rules would also make enlightening reading as well.  I would encourage you to very thoughtfully read article 6a, which deals with internet ettiquette, and the act of "trolling". 

Like I said, I can get the gist of what he said by looking at the length of the post.  No need to read it all.

As for rule 6a, I am not sure what you mean by trolling.  If responding to what you happen to be interested in can be considered "trolling", then I guess that I am guilty as charged.  If discussing what appears to be a sacred cow is trolling, then lock me up and throw away the key.

Its his site and he can do what he pleases with it.  Obviously he is doing just that.  I just hate seeing a great site site going virtually idle.

You guys are too thin skinned for me.

 

  However once you make the commitment to operate a site, then you have to keep it current or risk losing the interest of the people who visit.  Once that happens, it is difficult to get them back.   At that point,

 

 

Your premise here is that building up and maintaining an audience was/is Kevin's primary motive for operating the site.   Perhaps the size and continuity of its audience was merely a secondary or even tertiary consideration.

 

Either way, Keven's a smart boy.  I am quite sure he is very well aware that an absence of new postings has an impact on audience size.    The logical conclusion to draw, therefore, is that Kevin is fine with that - and that there are other thing of higher priority to him right now than the number of page views on fortworthology.com

 

Count me as a member of the group who visits fortworthology.com on a regular basis and that is why I am frustrated in the lack of new content.

 

 

Your feeling disappointed is understandable and is a compliment to Kevin.  But to go beyond that and to take him to task is highly inappropriate.  

 

If you have enjoyed his site, consider all that you have gotten from it to have been a gift from Kevin - because a gift is exactly what it was.   Just because somebody gives a gift on a regular basis does not mean that one somehow acquires a right to expect him to keep on giving - and one does not have a right to complain if he eventually decides to stop giving.   The single most finite, precious and non-renewable resource on the face of this earth is the hours, minutes and seconds which make up an individual human being's life.  Most civilized people would not feel comfortable walking up to someone and claim that they are entitled to a gift of a certain sum of money.   So how is it any better to claim that one is somehow entitled to a similar gift of another person's time and effort?

 

The purpose of Kevin's life and free time is not to serve visitors to fortworthology.com   The propose of Kevin's life is to focus on whatever matters Kevin deems to be worthy of such focus.   If there are other things such as his music  - or heck, even if it is just kicking back and loafing - that Kevin decides is a more valuable use of his precious hours, minutes and seconds than Fortworthology, then nobody has a right to challenge or second guess that.   One has a right to be disappointed - but that's it.  Kevin is not some sort of slave who exists for the purpose of catering to the wishes and desires of visitors to a website.

 

My strong guess is this was probably not an easy decision for Kevin to make.  But one only has so much free time - and time spent doing one thing is time that cannot be sent doing something else.  Conflicting priorities cannot always be worked out - and, when that is the case, some type of either-or type decision is sometimes the only alternative.  The world is full of fun things to do and good causes of all sorts.  One person can't do everything - each of us has to make our own decisions of what is important and where things fit into our overall priorities.

 

Now, Wes,  my strong guess is that you do not really think that you, as a fan of fortworthology, have some sort of mortgage over Kevin's free time and effort.  Indeed, you even go so far as to write:

 

At that point, it's best to reassess and either move on or find a way to recharge your batteries and make things better.

 

 

But Kevin has already done just that - indeed he said so quite explicitly back in posting number 36 in this thread.  The fact that you are still complaining suggests to me that perhaps, on an out of context emotional level, you feel a certain sense of entitlement that is in conflict with your actual views and understanding of what you know to be right.

 

 

 I am also frustrated that a great resource like fortworthology.com has blog for a very narrow range of topics.

 

 

 

Really?  Do I understand you correctly?  Are you suggesting that, even when Kevin was updating Fortworthology on a regular basis, it still was not good enough - and that he should have somehow put in even more time and energy than he already was to expand the range of topics to include things that he might not have been as passionate about or interested in?   If so, my own personal response to such a notion is:  other people aren't slaves.  

 

If you think the topics he covered ought to have been done differently and you feel really passionate about it - go out and do it yourself.  And, if you are unable or unwilling to do it yourself - then be grateful for what other people are giving you for free at their own expense.

 

However, I tend to look at this as constructive criticism and perhaps a call for Kevin to find someone who shares his passion about Fort Worth and let him/her help keep the site current.

 

 

 

I am very sorry - but I don't see how your criticism is constructive.   Kevin has already provided in this very thread his reasons for the absence of postings - and I look at it as an insult to his intelligence to imply that he is not already well-aware of the effect that a lack of postings has on audience size. 

 

As for Kevin finding someone else to keep the site current - I would put that in the category of being a constructive suggestion.   But, here too, you are talking about something that would also be a claim on his time and effort.  Finding such a person is not exactly an easy task.  First, he would have to find people capable of producing content that is up to his editorial and ideological standards.  Then, from that group, he would have to find someone who is willing to put in the same level of ongoing passion and uncompensated time and effort that he did when the site was regularly updated.   Finding someone like that is difficult.    And if such a person could be found - why would he need Kevin and Fortworthology?   If the person is basically going to be the new editor rather than merely an occasional contributor, what's to stop him from simply putting up his own blog and/or site?   Yes, he might start off with a built in audience - but, ultimately, he would be building up an audience for someone else's site.   And, even if Kevin could find someone willing to take it on - since Fortworthology is his website, he would still have a responsibility to make sure that what is being produced is up to his standards and be prepared to take action if it is not.   Bottom line - that would still be a claim on his time.

 

Now, just to make things clear, everything I have said here is merely my own opinion  - and, for all I know, Kevin might consider some or all of what I have written here to be absolute bunk.    A lot of what I am saying here is a bit of personal venting that comes from my own experience of being in Kevin's position.  

 

I have a few websites that I no longer update - and a blog that I plan to resume on an occasional basis after over a year's absence of postings.  And I also run an Internet radio station which is a free service that I provide at considerable expense to myself.  As with Kevin, my content is targeted towards a narrow niche that is not well-served by larger, professional media outlets - and as a result, I have built up a rather passionate and dedicated audience.  I have structured things so that if I find it enjoyable to put work into the project I will do so - if I don't, I don't.   I long ago told the audience to my now-archived website and my currently on-hiatus blog that I am unable to commit to a regular posting schedule - and  I provide an rss and twitter feed so that people can receive notification if and when postings resume.  When I tried to maintain a regular posting schedule  - quite frankly I found it was turning a fun hobby into a duty.  That was when I realized I needed to pull back.  Sure, the audience to my blog when down when I stopped posting.  So what?   I wasn't selling anything on it.   If my audience doubled the only thing I would have to show for it financially is a higher bandwidth bill.   

 

And I have received all sorts of highly inappropriate comments from certain individuals in my radio station audience.  I occasionally get emails from people complaining that they don't like this or that recording I have featured.  What on earth are they thinking when they tell me this?  Why should I care what they don't like?   I can guarantee that there are plenty of other listeners who do like those exact same recordings.   Do they really think that I ought to program the station to serve their own personal tastes and whims - regardless as to what I want to play or that other listeners might be interested in?   Comments from people about recordings they like I find useful - that tells me if I include similar ones in the future it will be appreciated.   But my guess is that even my most passionate and enthusiastic listeners occasionally hear recordings on the station they don't particularly care for.  So what?  Nobody can please all people all the time.

 

Some months ago there was a problem in the data center from which my broadcast emanates.  During the middle of the night Texas time my server crashed while I was asleep and it was a number of hours before I was aware of it and could bring things back online.  This happened on several occasions over a two week period.  The first few times it crashed I got an email from an overseas listener who expressed his disappointment about not being able to tune in to what he described as "the only station worth listening to."   That's fine.   But on a subsequent server crash he sent in a rather scathing email about how unacceptable this was and threatened that if it continued he would refuse to listen to the station.  Really?   Why on earth should such a threat motivate me in the least?   I basically wrote back and told him: Then don't listen.  Why should I care?  That just saves me that much more bandwidth for someone else. I am providing a free service.  Sure, such outages would be unacceptable if one were paying good money for a professional online service.  But sometimes you get what you pay for - which was the case here in terms of  the data center, having a backup and having someone available to monitor and immediately fix things 24 hours per day.  It is not as if I particularly enjoy having outages.   So this guy ends up chewing me out - the same guy who already told me that my station was the only one he considered worth listening to.   So if he makes good on his threat not to listen - well, who is the one who is actually losing out on something, him or me?  It sure isn't me. If I pulled the plug on the whole thing I would save a lot of time and money.

 

My wider point here is this:  such complaints to a labor of love type endeavor have the exact opposite of their intended effect.   Rather than motivating me to do what the complainer is demanding, I end up thinking:  Gee, I have put in all this time and money and this is what I get for it?  If that's the way you feel about things, it would serve you bloody well and right if I were to shut the whole thing down right here and now.  

 

If you value a website or a blog,  provide the owner feedback about what you like and why you like it.   And before offering suggestions, ask yourself exactly what sort of demand on the other person's time and money would be required in order to implement such a suggestion.  Keep that in mind when you phrase your suggestion (making sure it sounds like a suggestion and not a demand) - and don't be offended if the suggestion is not acted upon.

 

I have had all sorts of issues with various opinions Kevin has expressed on Fortworthology over the years.  But despite my disagreements, I think he produced a website that was informative and very impressive in terms of quality and quantity.   And I think some of the criticisms of Fortworthology made earlier in the thread are misplaced.   It was very clear from the get-go that the whole purpose of Fortworthology was to function as an outlet covering a particular set of interests and a platform for a particular point of view.   To criticize Fortworthology for not covering opposing viewpoints misses the entire point of the website.  Kevin has every right to be proud of what he accomplished with it.   And if he has decided to scale back on it or walk away from it because he has other priorities - if one values him in any way as a person, one ought to support his decision.

 

As a website owner myself, I respect the time it takes to keep one running and current but if you don't take the time to do so, people lose interest and head elsewhere.  When that happens, you're wasting your money keeping a site on a server.

 

 

No, it is not a waste of money to keep such a site on a server.   First of all, the cost these days of hosting an archived site with low to moderate traffic is minimal.  And just because an archived Fortworthology might not be of value to you doesn't mean that other people will not value it.    There are all sorts of people who will stumble across old articles for the very first time and enjoy them.  I still get emails and inquiries from stuff I posted a decade ago and had completely forgotten that I even put up.

 

I wish that I had the time and patience to read all of your post because I am sure its a doosie.  However, I am just going to take a wild guess and say that you probably disagreed with what I had to say.  That's fine and something that I can live with.

Kevin has a great site.  I think we can both agree on that.  Sites take time and commitment to maintain and keep current.  I can personally attest to that.

He used to do a great job keeping it current and in a blog format, such as fortwortholgy.com, you have to keep it current and that is something he has failed to do.  Has he lost his passion for site?  Possibly. I don't know him from Adam but in reading some of his prior posts, I suspect that is the case.  

When it was current and diverse, it was great but over the past year the focus has narrowed to bike sharing, bike lanes and road diets with an occasional update on new apartments.  That's all well and good but I do think that all of us can agree that there is more going on in this city.

So my hope is that he can somehow regain his passion or recharge his batteries because there is nothing I enjoy more than reading about Fort Worth and the great things that are happening in this city.  But if he can't, my wish would be that he turn it over to someone who has the fire in their belly to return the site to its former greatness.  Oh and at the same time, allow comments to be made because topic moderation on a site like that is a snap.

Dear Wes,

 

You are a bit new here . .  Kevin on the other hand, is not.  His site and this one have been my number one and number two most-checked sites for interesting developments in Fort Worth for several years; and I'm sure many folks here would say the same.  Until you have taken the time to put together such a useful resource for the community, (purely as a volunteer and out of civic pride), you might consider sitting back and learning from those who have.

 

 

Welcome to the forum, please post your observations on the Ft Worth in general and architecture in particular.  A good way to get started is to say something agreeable.

Russ

Perhaps you could direct me to the "lets all do happy talk forum".  If not, then I will stick to the original purpose of a message board and that is to express your thoughts, ideas and observations, about a particular subject(s).

I have owned a website for 18 years and that site contains a busy message board so I fully understand the time, effort and slave labor that it takes to keep a site running. Its not fun and often times a thankless chore.  However once you make the commitment to operate a site, then you have to keep it current or risk losing the interest of the people who visit.  Once that happens, it is difficult to get them back.   At that point, it's best to reassess and either move on or find a way to recharge your batteries and make things better.

Count me as a member of the group who visits fortworthology.com on a regular basis and that is why I am frustrated in the lack of new content.  I am also frustrated that a great resource like fortworthology.com has blog for a very narrow range of topics.

Now I understand that you, and others, are viewing this something that does not fit your view of "agreeable" discussion.  If that's the  case, so be it.  However, I tend to look at this as constructive criticism and perhaps a call for Kevin to find someone who shares his passion about Fort Worth and let him/her help keep the site current.

The site is back up..yahoo!  However, we are back to the cycle of few updates and I am sure it won't be long before we hear about another road diet or bike sharing plan.  That's about all he seems to be interested in.

As a website owner myself, I respect the time it takes to keep one running and current but if you don't take the time to do so, people lose interest and head elsewhere.  When that happens, you're wasting your money keeping a site on a server.