Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
The database is certainly what brings (and more importantly, keeps bringing) a huge number of people to the site
The database does contribute to the traffic, but it is less than 10%.
But it was earlier stated that the 'seperate' server the dbase resides on cost a lot to run.
Now its only 10% of the traffic?????
Don't get me wrong I am not trying to catch anyone out but it seemed earlier that the dbase was causing a lot of financial drain for want of better wording so as my earlier post, Bittorrent would be a good idea.
It then means that we are using our own bandwidth.
This would then negate the 'seperate' server.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:50 pm Post subject:
Quote:
If there are cheaper options which would negate the bandwidth cost argument, would they be prepared to take that option rather than charging?
We would be happy to look at any suggestions regarding bandwidth, but, unfortunately, that is just one issue. Amongst others, it's the administration time of the site as a whole that is also a real issue.
The bandwidth issue is related to both the database and the site as a whole.
I must say I am quite shocked that so much fuss is being made about paying something around £20-£24 per annum for a service that cannot be had for twice that amount anywhere else. If you actually *need* this data then this is peanuts. Perhaps some of the people who are complaining like the "idea" of having the cameras on their tomtoms, but hardly drive anywhere to justify it, so to them it will be money spent with no benefit. I say, go ahead, I'd much rather pay than see this service disappear or degrade in quality. To those who think it is a rip-off, well its a free world, and this information is public domain. Nothing to stop you compiling it yourselves and issuing it for free. If you don't fancy giving up your time for no reward, then it is unfair to criticise others for trying to come up with a sustainable business model.
I've travelled home tonight past 4 Fixed Gatsos, ALL OF THESE have been in place for at LEAST 2 years and are still active despite being a little bashed.
THREE of these cameras have been REMOVED from the database. That's SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT incorrect data. This goes against the 100% success rate PGPSW describe in their article!!!
I have had to create a seperate category to add these to because I cannot trust the PGPSW database.
Charging for it? Forget it!
I would never pay for somethng as flaky as this and if this charge was introduced, I will be looking elsewhere for the database. I am sure the latest versions will appear on the Internet and I don't think people who frequent this site will complain about it as they were when you were providing this information free. They'll be grabbing the information.
Also, how can PGPSW claim a copyright on this information/database? I have and continue to contribute to the database.
1. If I provide information to you, don't I hold the copyright on the information? If so, then I want it back or I want paying for it.
2. I will no longer contribute to this project/money making venture when the information I provide for FREE is CHARGEABLE to me in return!!
Joined: 19/11/2002 21:48:47 Posts: 160 Location: United Kingdom
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:55 pm Post subject:
Oh well, end of an era? Been around for years (albeit not posting recently - but that's another story) and lining the advertisers pockets.
I really do appreciate the uncomfortable position that you guys are in and I'm sorry that it takes so long to keep your site ticking over, but I'm not sure that I'll be paying. Sure, it may be cheaper than others, but for many of the reasons all ready mentioned, it's not sitting pretty here. _________________ What's going on? Where am I?
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 128 Location: Cheshire
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject:
Having read all the posts I personally would be willing to pay the £20 yearly, but I am surprised nobody from the PGPSW team picked up on Jeff Coopers post:
Quote:
Just a quick point - if you say £2 a month, if you multiply that by 12, and then multiply that by 5000 say (the users of the system?) thats £120,000 in total
The numbers make sense and £120,000 per year does seem a lot, considering the database has been built up on the back of cameras being submitted. The point of being sued for someone being caught by a camera not in the database makes as much sense as Norton being sued for someone getting a virus on their PC while Norton Antivirus was installed (Not much chance of success).
Just my 2 peneth.
Dave _________________ Holux231, XDAII Copilot 6, 1Gb Lexar SD Card
I'm disappointed a charge is to be levyd but I can understand why.
As regards pricing I think £1 per download or £10 per year is a fair price. I'm basing that on various band websites that have a members section. BonJovi.com for example charge $10 per year and provide many mp3's, vieos etc.
If you do charge how do you propose to offer support? At the moment you take it as you find it and if you can't get it working then the community helps you out. If you pay for a download and need tech support I would expect, no, demand it be made to work. How will this impact upon the profit margin for each download?
It's obvious that the charge will come into effect but the timing with the POICapture was poor. I don't think it was a consious decision to get the database updated as much as possible before charging for it but it doesn't give a good impression.
Presentation: if you're going from hobby site to professional the site design needs a huge overhaul. If I were a new visitor all the adverts and poor formatting would make me question how professional it is.
I wonder how much thought has been given to all the various aspects of charging and would welcome a request for feedback rather than a date the charging is to begin.
I'm a newbie - bought a TTOne a week ago. I found this site through a tip on another system (CIX) as a source of free/public domain camera database. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
Came here tonight to work out how to report the three camera errors on my 6.5 mile route to work along the A4/A30 between Ealing and Heathrow (which did seem rather alarming in terms of accuracy for such a masively busy stretch of road).
And found this hornets nest!
I honestly think you are going to fall between two stools.
My inclination will be either pay TomTom for a polished, shrink-wrapped service, or find another free project, which I would contribute time and updates to, and accept the warts.
If your problems are workload and running costs, you should seek other solutions. I'm sure lots of people would be happy to help.
If you want to raise some money, may I suggest you continue to offer a free service, but also offer a premium service on top. Perhaps access to updates a month sooner than the free version? I'm sure you can think of other bonuses to add for subscribers.
Set the price at £9.99/year.
Sit back and watch the cash roll in, and still keep your supporters happy.
This advice is given free of charge. If you take it, I will not come back later and ask for a consultancy fee :-O
It seems to make sense if you're going to use the money to employ someone full time to maintain the database and, presumably, perform other administrative functions for the site?
So, at a push, I can just about accept that we are all merely paying for someone to collate the data that many of us supply and I might therefore consider it appropriate to continue submitting camera changes.
However, it seems many, many, folk here won't be willing to submit changes any longer and this would appear to fatally undermine the operational model for the camera database.
If sold right, the idea might work, but I fear this is not currently the case...
Can someone from PGPSW confirm the costing model you used to arrive at £2 per download? If it can be proved to be a maintenance only cost (ie not-for-profit) then people may be more willing to continue supporting the operational model by submitting camera changes? Would you, for example, commit to donating any surplus income to a charity?
Or are you actually wishing to begin making profits after all your years of voluntary service? I ask, not to be facetious, but in search of an honest answer... I think people here deserve to know the way things really are...
Whilst I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a free lunch, I do not support the monthly charge, the annual charge, IMO is a far better option and the muted £20 is not unreasonable.
As far as adding cameras using Poi Capture is concerned, I would gladly add new sites if I could ever get the damn thing to work. I have had nothing but grief with it and my posts have not yet come to a conclusive end _________________ Garmin Nuvi 2699lmt
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:59 pm Post subject: paying
well all i can say is whats £2
i would just update every two months,
Also how quick would it be on the likes of emule, kazza, limewire etc, you could find people wont bother coming here, they will just download it from one of them. Because its free now theres no point. But to me £2 is nothing and i cannot see why people object.
The database currently contains an absurd amount of redundant data.
For example, the current database is 1.68Mb, but as a Garmin user I only need the CSV files - which is a mere 256Kb.
Bandwidth requirements could be decimated by partitioning the database into sections - CSV files for Garmin, OV2 files for TomTom, and so on.
Also I'm sure that there's quite a few people who would be delighted to host a mirror of the database for you.
Copyright:
Whilst I'm not trying to belittle the amount of behind-the-scenes work that you guys do, the database is essentially a collection of public works.
As the publisher, you may hold the copyright on this particular compilation of the data - but not necessarily the data itself.
Many contributions will have been made on the understanding that the database is in the public domain, free to access, and for the greater good.
What you are proposing fundamentally changes the relationship between contributer and publisher. Are you going to contact each contributor and ask them for legal permission to use their submitted data in this way?
Practicality:
How do you intend to prevent people from downloading the database, and subsequently distributing it themselves? It might just be emailed around a couple of mates, or it might be posted on Usenet.
The bottom line is, you haven't got a hope - and if it's available somewhere for free, why on earth is anybody going to pay?
And what about administering the subscriptions? Some people will want to pay per download, others will prefer annual or even lifetime subscriptions. My God, you think you're busy now...
Goodwill:
I'm glad that you acknowledge that the database owes a lot to the goodwill of the community.
Trouble is, I think I can see that goodwill evaporating even as I type...
Joined: Mar 18, 2004 Posts: 753 Location: Biggleswade, BEDS
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject:
Turning "Professional" is only the start downward turn, I have been concerned for some months about the sites independance. How will this decision affect the product reviews ? ? ? When will the site start selling other products that may have received a positive review ?
OK £2 isn't much for the database especially when it saves you getting a speeding fine, there will be less users providing updates, and inturn less users returning to the site. These users will source the camera database from other sources ebay, P2P, torrents etc etc
The database is certainly what brings (and more importantly, keeps bringing) a huge number of people to the site
The database does contribute to the traffic, but it is less than 10%.
I think you're missing the point that's being made there, and that is the the mere existence of the speed camera database, contributed to by its users and provided at no charge, is a major 'advert' for PGPSW (it's certainly how I found it).
Personally, the only reason I've recommended the site to many people is because of the database. Don't get me wrong - the site and forums are superb it's merely that it is the database that has been the common interest amongst my friends/colleagues - the majority are 'plain old users' who don't really have an interest in how GPS works etc and certainly don't want to chat about it!
Noone can have any idea how much traffic the database has brought to the whole site - after all when I tell people about it I don't give them the specific URL (don't even know what it is!) of the database page I simply given them that of the main site.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
