Search query remaster'd?

[Zarxrax]

Not that I entirely agree with the following logic, but it can be argued that those who would be driven off by this are the ones who aren't donating anyway while there's a chance it motivates someone to actually donate. With donations not covering monthly costs, encouraging non-donators to not use bandwidth might not be the worst of all ideas.

However to the best of my knowledge, the site does not have any bandwidth issues. They pay the same amount even if no one uses the site.

[hasteroth]

Not that I entirely agree with the following logic, but it can be argued that those who would be driven off by this are the ones who aren't donating anyway while there's a chance it motivates someone to actually donate. With donations not covering monthly costs, encouraging non-donators to not use bandwidth might not be the worst of all ideas.

However to the best of my knowledge, the site does not have any bandwidth issues. They pay the same amount even if no one uses the site.

That's what I think too. Though I'm not certain. A fixed price can be a good thing or a bad thing, when compared to paying by how much bandwidth is used (don't know what to call that). It would be a bad thing if nobody used it because then you'd be paying extra for and getting nothing in return. Though if there is alot of people using it then you could end up paying less.

[godix]

Not that I entirely agree with the following logic, but it can be argued that those who would be driven off by this are the ones who aren't donating anyway while there's a chance it motivates someone to actually donate. With donations not covering monthly costs, encouraging non-donators to not use bandwidth might not be the worst of all ideas.

However to the best of my knowledge, the site does not have any bandwidth issues. They pay the same amount even if no one uses the site.

If use drops enough it might eventually make sense to get a cheaper plan with less bandwidth. So in the short term it wouldn't save money but might in the long term.

Besides, the donate page pisses off hasteroth and that right there is a pretty good reason to keep it on search results.

[hasteroth]

Not that I entirely agree with the following logic, but it can be argued that those who would be driven off by this are the ones who aren't donating anyway while there's a chance it motivates someone to actually donate. With donations not covering monthly costs, encouraging non-donators to not use bandwidth might not be the worst of all ideas.

However to the best of my knowledge, the site does not have any bandwidth issues. They pay the same amount even if no one uses the site.

If use drops enough it might eventually make sense to get a cheaper plan with less bandwidth. So in the short term it wouldn't save money but might in the long term.

Besides, the donate page pisses off hasteroth and that right there is a pretty good reason to keep it on search results.

It doesn't piss me off. Just bugs me a little.

[godix]

If use drops enough it might eventually make sense to get a cheaper plan with less bandwidth. So in the short term it wouldn't save money but might in the long term.

Besides, the donate page pisses off hasteroth and that right there is a pretty good reason to keep it on search results.

It doesn't piss me off. Just bugs me a little.

Good enough for me.

[Corran]

Isn't it a bit excessive to have donation begging on the search results? I mean they are going to see it when they try to download a video. It seems to me like this is something which would simply turn off many potential visitors to the site.

I recently got the go ahead so I've removed the donation prompt screens from search results.

[hasteroth]

Isn't it a bit excessive to have donation begging on the search results? I mean they are going to see it when they try to download a video. It seems to me like this is something which would simply turn off many potential visitors to the site.

I recently got the go ahead so I've removed the donation prompt screens from search results.

Awsmcre