+95
Under review

Pro plan is way to expensive!

trude017mill 1 year ago in Website • updated by Marcus Teo 7 months ago 110

Is this new? I've never seen the requirement to buy Pro in order to see an article. I love you guys, but $900/yr is out of the question, just to access a few dated articles. You need a different path to cover costs and make a profit. How about a $15-$20/mo plan, I bet you would get a hell of a lot more takers!

+6

SA's more popular authors AND their followers will be the losers here. How many will continue to share their portfolio results and lessons learned, knowing the limited shelf life of their thoughtful analyses?

Further, I suspect that some of the more astute commenters will think twice before taking time to add their own judicious viewpoints, knowing that ten days hence there will be precious few readers looking at them.

+15

I agree with the general sentiment here. Online communities are delicate, and this change is fundamental enough to destroy SA. SA is now Digg or Myspace, and a reddit or Facebook will spring up to replace it.

+12

I'll just find free content elsewhere.   But sad as I was enjoying SA.  The Micron guys were killing it - and often those articles get new, cogent comments more than 10 days after publication - sometimes months after.  This new policy needs changed or SA will be replaced by another service. (For the record, I wouldn't pay 20$.  You got ads. I put up with Ads -you get the ad-revenue. That's the deal. Charge me? - I scoot.  SA is Good - but not that good.  Not better than the risotto good) Peace.

+4

I love the reference! Definitely not better than the risotto. Sad to see this day

+5

10 days is an arbitrary and consequential cutoff, especially when the alternative is such a biting user fee.  The change in direction was, to be blunt, clumsily handled and that adds to the chafing amongst what is proving to be a passionate and, prior to this strategic shift, loyal community.  The outcome, from a business perspective, is yet to be determined but I suspect, judging from the backlash, it may be significant.  It's a shame.  You really had a good thing going and from where I sit, it appears that a more gradual evolution would have avoided risk of revolution.  My <2c. 

+12

It is crazy that you are charging more than WaPo, NYT, WSJ, and Barrons.  Not many folks will pay what you want. And you will chase commenters away as well as they/we will find other places to share thoughts about the market. There is way too much fluff and inanity on this site to justify such a high price and not enough original research (with some exceptions, for sure). Give me a break: half the posts on some threads are just statements that the writer is long. You are way  over-estimating how much unique value the site has as well as how hard it would be to replicate it somewhere else.


People might part with $5/month for archive access, but certainly not more than that.


+4

I am willing to pay for older articles but this new paywall is just sh*t. I already pay hundreds of dollars for subscription services and the latest change just feels like a rip-off. This is the first time SA has really disappointed me... big time!

+14

I put a fair amount of content into my comments.  So do many other commenters.  You will kill commenting if the commenters know they can't even revisit the articles the commented on (nor can new readers read the comments or respond) after 10 days.


I do understand SA is trying to make money and some authors are trying to make money.  But you will kill the community discussion with this sort of approach.


The content is wide, but quite a bit lower in average quality than Wall Street Journal, Economist, etc. If I really want to subscribe to something would subscribe to those, not to what is essentially a discussion board, shared blogspace type of operation.


I will now stop commenting on single ticker articles (and defollow them as any come up with new comments). 


Little worried that you will implement the same thing on the broader articles (nothing stopping you from doing this like you did the single ticker ones).  May stop commenting there also.  Of course the whole site could go down. Just a risk one takes with chat on the net.  (instead of at least having your own blog.)  I was OK with the risk before, but now getting the impression the enterprise is in extremis.

+5

I have enjoyed this site but frankly it loses a great deal of its value with this new policy and I will have to consider simply stepping away to another investment source.  Are you doing this both for profit and to cover up previous articles where Contributors got it wrong?  You HAD a first class thing here and it is yours to do with as you see fit.  It was good while it lasted!

+17

Disaster of a business model - good luck trying to monetize your users. Just do the math - it comes to almost $1k/yr for access. On a 50k portfolio (probably less than 50% of the reader base actually has more than this amount) that makes 10% a year, you're asking for 2% of the gains. Just doesn't make sense when professional money managers struggle to charge 2%.

+7

Good point.  Shows exactly how unrealistic the $900/year is for many audiences.


The website has done a poor job figuring where the value is for investors in their already carged services, and where the value is for investors in their uncharged services.  Instead they have put in an overly simplistic paywall, and vastly overcharged for it, while sealing off access to their actually chargable value in their website.  This may well make a B-school case someday as a study in how not to try to monetize value in a website; ie killing a potentially golden goose.




+13

Yes-Both Thumbs Down on this Change!  Agree with most of sentiments expressed above ; they are almost all negative, but some cite different reasons for negativity.  But the negatives have got it right, for whatever their individual reasons.


The quality of authors is too uneven.  While some authors obviously are either experienced investors or have significant experience in a particular industry, others are obviously B-school undergrads or MBA candidates, and have never risked significant $$.  $900 entitles one to uniformly sophisticated analysis, not a B-School midterm project.


The comments are often the best and most important part of a research article.  There are many sophisticated commenters who bring some great facts or analysis to bear, but do not themselves write original articles.  These comments often don't arrive in the first 10 days of an article's life, and losing access to these will significantly devalue the entire website for me.


So I will spend significantly less time reading articles of varying quality and commenting on articles that are more than 10 days old on the site.  So there is less time available to assault me with the usual ads, which I do not block.  SA loses on that count.


There might be a sum, say $100 or so a year, or maybe even a smidge more, that I would pay to enjoy total access to the back issues articles and comments.   But $900 is way off base.  As Dylan put it so well: 'No, no, no!  --It ain't me, Babe...'



+15

The authors and contributors to this site who have put in endless hours of research and expected to reach a very wide audience will be the main losers.  The free exchange of ideas and active participation in the comments section is what enlightened many, including the authors.  Follow up is essential to discussions on investments. An arbitrary 10 day free limit is absurd and has no base.  The reality is that many valuable comments are posted after 10 days, as well as new developments etc.  The poor contributor who slaved for hours on the original article and then was trying to provide follow up based on interactions with readers and news items will find there is no one listening or reading because it costs too much to participate.  Seeking Alphas heart and soul was in the comments of the community.  Shutting off the flow of comments and participation will be like shutting off the water in the desert.  This has happened before to many good organizations that got greedy and shut off the bloodline to the heart.....there has got to be better ways, or perhaps a more reasonable $10-$20 a month to support your efforts.  Might as well shut down the site.  The death will be quicker and more merciful.  Please listen to the users.  This is not a good decision.  Greed kills.

+9

I  am going to add my voice to the growing list of discontent SA members. SA has always offered a very unique website and community to those wishing to learn more about individual securities and investing in general. Among the vast sea of heavily monetized-investment advice on the Internet, SA has always stood out from the rest by offering a viable free membership for most articles. Now SA is just another undistinguishable wave in the ocean.


If SA was in financial difficulty, or if the owners/administrators did really need to more effectively monetize the content, then I can fathom paying $10/month or maybe $15 at the high end. Make free members turn their ad blockers off. Going from $0 to $75 (with very little notice, IMO) is inexcusable and short-sighted strategy. I thought this website placed high emphasis on fair and upfront disclosures?


I will look diligently for other websites and online investing communities. In the meantime, Reddit has always remained free, something SA can no longer claim

+9

I think we should start a forum to share other high quality websites and online investing communities because I will be looking elsewhere as well now.

+1

Agree!!!  How about siliconinvestor.com

+10

This new policy of locking articles is absurd. Did you receive authorization from every author to do this? What if some authors want their content to stay free forever? And how are they supposed to generate revenue through clicks on their articles if you lock them behind a paywall?


I am currently a small time investor and can not justify paying this much to read research, I have a feeling many regular visitors to this site are like me as well.

+5

Like many others, I have enjoyed sa for at least a couple years now, however the new 10 day rule is a problem for me because I use historical articles when evaluating new investments , and I would be glad to pay some amount ($20-25 monthly?) for this privilege... and personally I cannot justify anything close to $75 monthly ($800 annually). Maybe you could offer an annual subscription option for a much lower price?

+8

This is just ridiculous. Introducing paid only access without any communication whatsoever and then one only finds out about it after having checked the forum section.. Thats just terrible Customer Relations. Shame on you.


And the price is just ridiculous as well. You are completely nuts. Good luck with your traffic. Hope a decent alternative shows up soon and eats you..

+3

Sorry but $75 a month is way too much I believe the fee should be closer to Netflix/Amazon i.e. no more than $10 a month or discounted to $100 a year if paid in advance. If SA continues to go this route I for one and
probably many more like me will likely go elsewhere.

+6

LOL, I thought I was the only "free" subscriber suddenly shut out of "analysis" etc., which so often was contributed by some financial advisor or another as promotion, or some dedicated amateur sharing (unvetted) knowledge, with a chorus of often trollish comments from people too young to have seen a market cycle.


Of course, now none of my bookmarks to SeekingAlpha articles work, they're all locked down behind the ridiculously expensive paywall.


I went to the trouble of reviewing what's now included in "free" membership:


Basic Membership Includes:

Real time news and analysis on holdings in your portfolio
Access to our full archive of news, earnings calls and filings
Access to our most recent articles



As near as I can tell, other than just-published articles, which are available for 10 days, you get access to the "archive" of earnings announcements and filings, the kind of boilerplate that you can easily find Googling.


Anything else costs at least $75 a month.


If you don't pony up $75 a month, no point in following anyone thinking you'll catch up later, no point in bookmarking an article, and little point in sharing it because when your friends get a chance to read it, they may be locked out.


I sincerely wish SeekingAlpha well in their repackaging of financial advisor self-promotion and amateur analysis as a an extremely expensive subscription service, far more expensive than many respected financial newsletters.


One wonders who would pay at least $900 per year for this. The pros don't need it, unless they want to check out each others' pickup lines and an ordinary investor is better off subscribing to a couple of newsletters for far less expense.


SeekingAlpha was fun to read for years, but now the free public-facing side will be dead as a doornail, no point in even taking part in comments, when you follow up, likely you'll be locked out.

+5

I'm sure somebody at SA thought charging $75 a month would be a good idea. I would just like to remind that person or persons that some other genius thought it would be a good idea to use hydrogen on the Hindenburg and we all know how that turned out.

+6

Most likely, SeekingAlpha marketing or marketing consultants projected some degree of profitability at $75+ a month, they have estimates of how many subscriptions they need to sell, and they decided that the free folks are just excess low-value baggage that might as well go away. It's possible SA can maintain some degree of ad revenue with people attracted by that 10-day window.


However, Google ranking will suffer, because why go through the frustration of clicking on a SeekingAlpha link, probability being you won't be able to read the article? (Same with Barron's.)


Essentially, SeekingAlpha has gone private, paywall-wise.

+1

Please offer a pay-per-read option (maybe $1 per article) for those of us who only need to read a few articles per month

let's start a thread with the best alternatives to SA. I'm a longtime follower SA but this is pure greed, come back when you have the quality, history, and class of the WSJ and we'll talk about the price

+1

mdavi...


I'm also really peeved about the latest changes, but not sure how you can compare WSJ to SA. WSJ is a news outlet. Have you ever made an investment from something you read in the WSJ? I love the WSJ, but it's basically just markets news. I can't afford what they are asking at SA for my size portfolio, but comparisons to WSJ don't seem to fit. 


Please post the link to the thread about alternatives- I really need one now. 

+3

I just want to thank everyone for your feedback. Eli and I decided to listen instead of responding immediately. Some clear messages have come through. I hope to update you soon with the next steps we're planning to take.

+1

David, I'd be curious to know if you have gotten any takers and if new paying member numbers have been above, below or about what you expected? But more important than that, I hope you guys seriously consider the many points presented here, the likely death of comments, SEO impact from reduced comments & tons of content that will no longer be indexed, likely loss of users due to pissed off member base, PPC impact from all of the above... Like I said initially, I love SA and truly do wish you well and continued success!

trude017mil, thank you for your question, and particularly for the kindness and civility with which it was expressed. 


My goal is to listen carefully to the feedback here and elsewhere with an open mind. So please forgive me if I don't express any opinions about the issues raised here and in other threads, and limit myself to giving you the data you requested:


1. Signups for PRO have far exceeded our expectations, and there is no sign yet that the sign up rate is slowing. At the current sign up rate, we will be able to pay our contributors more, and increasingly reward them for value rather than pageviews. Paying our contributors more should enable us to increase the quality and quantity of articles for both paying subscribers and non-subscribers who read articles in the first 10 days after publication.


2. We're not seeing a concerning reduction in the number of comments. This is because the vast majority of comments are written within the first 10 days of an article's life. Of the relatively small percentage of comments left after 10 days, many of them are written by people who already commented in the first 10 days. Our analysis of the readership and comment data was the basis for fixing the paywall at 10 days, and ensuring that people who have already commented on an article are able to view the comments and add further comments even after the article is behind the paywall. While it's obviously not optimal to comment on an article when you can no longer see it, a significant percentage of new comments on older articles discuss the stock more than the article itself. We did a gradual rollout of the paywall to check that these comment patterns didn't change due to the paywall, and so far we're seeing no change at full rollout.


3. We took a number of steps to mitigate any impact to SEO, and so far we're not seeing any signs of damage to search traffic. Our search traffic just hit an all time high, and our contributors are reaching a larger readership than ever before and will receive larger payments.


4. We haven't seen a meaningful decline in article reads, nor a spike in account cancellations. That's probably due to the fact that the paywall only impacts "primary ticker articles" after 10 days, leaving the vast majority of Seeking Alpha usage intact. Canceling an account would mean that a user would lose real time news coverage, transcripts, analysis and email alerts on their stocks, when none of those have been affected by the paywall.


This doesn't necessarily mean we've got the product and pricing right. I'd like to continue to listen to your and others' feedback with an open mind, so at this stage I'll avoid drawing conclusions from this data. But I'd welcome your and others' reactions to it. 

+2

David:


Thank you for acknowledging the community and that you are reviewing the comments seriously. As I mentioned earlier, my biggest concern with Seeking Alpha is trying to determine the quality of the authors. When subscribing to a known financial publication, I take some solace in recognized journalistic practices. With Seeking Alpha we are told “Disagree with this article? Submit your own” That’s a pretty low bar.


Perhaps Seeking Alpha can add a ratings system to contributors with every article, that can assist in validating the new costing model. Some “off the top of my head” ideas:


  • # of followers (1-2500, 2501-5000, 5001-7500, 7501-10,000, 10,001+) 5 points max
  • Number of editors picks (1-10, 10-25 ,26-75, 75+) 4 points max
  • Interaction with commenters vetting out the article (0 comments, 0-2%, 2%+) [% of comments belonging to the author] 2 points max
  • Accreditation (recognized financial credentials [CFP, CIWM, CLU, FP, PFP, RFP], acknowledged financial credentials, industry tenure [1-10yrs, 10-20yrs, 20+yrs] (4pts, 2pts, 3pts graded) cumulative 9 points max 
  • Grand total of 20 points
+1

I've often thought along the same lines, these are EXCELLENT suggestions.

You're welcome David and thanks for the input/feedback on what's happening internally and how it's going. Eager to hear of future updates/changes/modifications.


+1

David, I ponied up for the $30 a month offer.  This to me feels like it should the premium PRO level pricing.  Other, lower priced, tiers seem well advised as well, perhaps with caps on the number of archived articles available per month or such.

As an advertising & marketing professional for the past forty years, I'll suggest that you offer PRO subscribers the option to add a "PRO" suffix after their name, perhaps as the default condition.  

+4

I haven't read all the comments/replies above, but I just discovered the new "pricing plan" that got slammed on all of us long-time alpha seekers without warning!  I had some articles in a browser window I had planned to follow up on, and now they are all restricted to Pro when I refresh.  This is a poor way to treat your members!  You should have at least given us a heads-up beforehand.  And the price is outrageous.  There were already pay subscriptions for some posters/analysts articles.  And now this on top of that.  It's one thing to pay for something you've subscribed to, but to pay for an ad-laced site is another story.  (Not saying I mind the ads that provide you revenue, but to charge on top of that is a bit heavy-handed.)

+1

I second most opinions here. A big disservice having changed access this way, and the price proposed doesn't reflect what's affordable by your audience. Bad move, I'm disappointed and will be looking somewhere else for news

+2

$75 per month is too much.  What would I be willing to pay?  $20 per month or $200 per year.


If I am going to pay money for this site, then I wish the editors would better review the content.  For example, one popular author, who writes almost daily REIT articles, regurgitates the same content for each respective REIT article over and over again, without adding much additional content. 


I have noticed a misleading trend developing in the article titles.  "10 Top Silver Stocks for 2018", for example, with only 6 thru 10 listed in the article and the rest available thru the author's paid service.    


I get a lot of useful information and have learned a great deal from SA'S articles and comments.  I hope you will please reconsider your fee structure and adjust your editing standards.

+2

Simply put, in addition to the well stated points above, I do not believe that the quality of information on SA justifies the cost of access, especially for dated articles (which I would imagine have a diminished value relative to the "free, real time" content). I think it is now worthwhile to pay a premium to access research written by professionals. While it may be potentially profitable for SA in the long run, I think it is utterly ridiculous to charge $900 to read mostly novice research.

+2

Pro plan is exorbitant. cut it by 2/3 and no problem. 

+2

I believe $10 a month or $100 a year would be fair and reasonable to most folks. While 20 to 30 a month may be palatable to some that is a bit of money to cough up for a smaller investor/retree I think you will lose a ton of subscribers even at that level. I am accustomed to the layout/format of seeking alpha and am willing to pay a bit to help but price it too high and I will be forced to look elsewhere.

David,


I'm an active commenter ($30/month offered to me) on a relatively small number of articles and many of my comments are on older articles.  I often find the comments more useful than the articles.


Is this right?  As a non-subscriber


- If I miss an article for 10 days, I lose the privilege of both reading and commenting


- If in that 10 days I either comment on an article or click "track comments" I maintain access to the article's comments


- the audience for my comments is only those who began tracking comments in the first 10 days, unless they happen to have a pro subscription and also happen to somehow stumble on the comment


- even for articles I've commented or clicked "track comments" I lose access to the article after 10 days


If so, my biggest concern is the final point.  If commenting or clicking "track comments" allowed me to maintain access to both the comments and the article then SA will continue to be a valuable asset to me.  If not, I suspect I will drift away.


Also, if the "track comments" button works as I describe above, it should be made far more prominent.  Maybe it should always be visible when reading an article so readers don't forget to click it.  Or maybe use a yellow background for articles being read that aren't subscribed to so readers don't forget to track an article.


I personally would not object to only being able to "track comments" on 10 additional articles per month as part of my my free subscription.  That would keep people from going crazy with the track comments feature.

+1

I pay for a service on Seeking Alpha, but not the Pro+ membership.  I think if you are a paying member to a service on Seeking Alpha, you should have access to all Free Seeking Alpha Articles and not be restricted by the new policy to remove them after 10 days.  It makes sense to have some additional benefits if you decide to pay for a service on Seeking Alpha.

Thanks,

Brett

+1

It's very disappointing to search on relatively popular equities and find every single article locked.  For non-PRO users, the utility of SA is less than 50% of what it was a month ago.   It's also annoying to make a decision based upon an article and then find shortly thereafter your access has been removed w/out notice.


This lack of value will catch up to SA as will representing intent to compensate authors w/out even notifying them that their articles become locked.  (it's a ridiculous situation to follow links to locked articles all over this site!)


However, congratulations that your pro subscriber base is "growing beyond expectations" without any impact on traffic or engagement. 


Regards,


Another among many discontented marketplace subscriber



I am skeptical about your pro subscriber base "growing beyond expectations".  For how long.  You just killed off the goose with the golden eggs.  Disgraceful how the authors as well as the loyal SA readers are being shafted.

+2

This is an outrage.

Give people a choice, add pro get no adds.

Non-pro = get adds.

Feel betrayed by seeking Alpha. Now hidden old articles that are older than 10 days old...

+9

The math here alone makes zero sense.  Let's assume that the majority of Seeking Alpha users are not institutional investors considering I'm not sure what institution is going to use crowd sourced research that often provides little insight into industry or company details beyond the 10,000 foot view.  Of course institutions would be willing to pay $900 when they pay much more for a Bloomberg terminal and other data sources.  The problem is, I'm assuming the vast majority of Seeking Alpha (SA) users are individuals with relatively small portfolios that do not leverage research provided by big box brokers for free.  Let's say the average user has $100K in investable assets (probably too high, maybe not)...that would mean they are spending 90bps on getting insights from SA...Put that on top of users who use ETF's or have a broker with high fees and you're talking about an expense ratio in the range of 1.5%-2.0% which is absurd.  Some basic analysis/logic on the part of SA which looks at their user base would tell them the pricing makes no sense.  I would definitely pay something reasonable to hear some high quality crowd sourced perspectives, but a large portion of SA "analysis" is done by rookie or even "seasoned" investors that have little understanding of the company they are researching beyond what you would read in a press release.  That is all from the peanut gallery. 

+5

You just Wrote what i wanted to write!:D If we assume most people wont beat the market consistently and the S&P market return in average historically below 10% than how the hell would worth for most individuals more than 10% of their annual return to be paid to get some info?! Me personally i beat the market in the last 2 year by a multiple of margin but my total portfolio size is just 40 000 USD yet, so how the hell would it make sense even for me to buy this subscriptions. If i got billions to invest and this "investements" about all the investments channels together wouldnt reach more than 0.1% of my annual return i would consider a buy!:) I love to be here,but i dont get my ideas from here,i come here to discuss under articles in general,and see other peoples opinion about certain companies, it wouldnt make much sense to me to buy anything in the range where it is today. I wrote a personal e mail when i been greeted to be one of the "elite 5000 chosen one",but i explained fairly simply there as well that it doesnt make sense for the vast mayority of individual investor.

+2

Seeking Alpha may be getting an initial flourish of Pro subscribers, but I wonder if in the end, their page views overall will go down?  Not a good way to attract and keep advertisers.

+2

I'd pay $39 per year but not $900 per year. Not sure how they derived at this figure. There are some great, talented investors posting articles but many are just average Joes (I am just an average Joe). Anyone have suggested alternatives to Seeking Alpha?

+3

I have found a few but none with quite as polished a layout and format as Seeking Alpha. I would almost be willing to start a competing website as I'm still pretty upset over SA's subscription pricing which I think is pretty outrageous.

+3

Very poor decision by management here. No one is going to subscribe to this. Give it a couple weeks/months and watch the backtracking begin...

+4

Sounds like declining ad revenue is the motivation for this change, so I would suggest putting a nag message up to get people to turn off their ad blockers. I could never justify the PRO cost, especially given the many authors that have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Most sites have been able to remain free by getting support from users to turn off ad blockers, and most are happy to do so if ads are not obnoxious. lastly, this change in policy was very poorly communicated, if you value the community you should not make radical changes like this without explaining the rationale. You could also consider an ad free version of the site for an additional charge.


I find the comments section here to be at least as informative as the articles (unless its about AAPL, then you get flame wars) so I have to believe this will reduce or eliminate comments once the article's behind the paywall.

+2

Classic response......SA wants to bend over the very folks who have made it the "go to" site for research and opinions.  Apparently some 30 something, newly minted MBA thinks there is an untapped revenue stream to be had.  Too bad.....I am already looking around for an alternative.  

+1

Bye, bye, SA!  Why should I even bookmark the site?  Ridiculous price hike very clumsily handled.  Self-destructive move.

+1

bye bye i read sa less and less.

I see that they've taken my suggestion and implemented something to force people to turn off their pop-up blockers in order to read articles, which I am completely fine with. Hopefully with the extra ad revenue they're able to revert back to letting small timers like myself read older articles to get background information on companies we could potentially want to invest in.


P.S. I read one of the non-paywalled articles a couple of weeks ago about a stock that I've been following closely, and the author didn't even present the factual information correct. You expect people to pay for opinion articles where the authors barely take the time to research a stock before giving their opinion?

I have to agree with all the comments above.  Have used SA extensively for personal and work related insights for years now.  But the Pro subscription is out of reach. 

this is very surprising - im an awesome contributor but now its impossible unless you write an rticle i guess? i mean if they wanted to make that a thing, which is basically a diluted VIC, why not just start a new website instead of breaking the one that worked?

+1

$100-200 a year I can understand.   $360+ a year is way too much.   SA is NOT WSJ or NYT.

+1

Unfortunately their silence on this issue i.e. under review for 3 + months now speaks volumes they are essentially hoping that all of the complaints will just subside which regrettably appears to be the case and as long as the current PRO members are willing to pay the premium for their subscriptions why should they care about the peasants.  

Terrible, you've lost a user. 

Seeking alpha is going bonkers, plain stupid and suicidal.  I actually come here to read comments.  I will be deleting my account or at least unsubscribing.

The price of PRO is now significantly lower. See it here: https://seekingalpha.com/pro

Oh get real SA. $45/month is insane. Earn it through ad revenue if need be. You want to monetize users, ill just go elsewhere. You will continue losing users and authors, and after 1 or 2 years, your site will be defunct. Good luck to you. Meantime, I will be spreading the word to boycott this site. What a shame.