Comments on: Kottke goes full time

Kottke goes full time

sylloge — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:37:19 -0800

Time was that you could get the crap kicked out of you for posting kottke.org to MeFi. Three and a quarter years later, what's changed? Jason's decided to make a living off this blog ... but without running advertising. Good luck, says I.

By: sninky-chan

sninky-chan — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:45:29 -0800

Is it time for micropayments to be cool yet? If so, it might be interesting to do some kind of comparison analysis: who's offering what for how much out there.

By: amyscoop

amyscoop — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:03:31 -0800

He's right -- it is a HUGE economic risk. Even in a (relatively) cheaper apartment in Brooklyn, the cost of living in NY is astronomical. But if it works, it could really change, or at least affect, the whole idea of internet businesses.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:04:27 -0800

$30 suggested donation!!

By: greasy_skillet

greasy_skillet — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:06:47 -0800

Save Kottke!

By: camworld

camworld — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:08:46 -0800

I'm nt sure if this is going to work unless Jason provides his subscribers with something more tangible. There are so many blogs out there now that it's quite possible most readers will jsut go somewhere else to get their daily fix of news, commentary and links. If I've learned anything in the past 8 years of running my blog, it's that people are very cheap. It will be interesting to see if Jason's effort succeeds. I'll be watching and paying attention, for sure.

By: kika

kika — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:11:23 -0800

He was probably inspired by John Gruber of Daring Fireball who did the same thing in June. Unfortunately since Daring Fireball went 'commercial' about half of the postings are about donations and fundraising. I hope Kottke isn't going to do the same thing...

By: jsavimbi

jsavimbi — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:12:25 -0800

"Quitting my job to run kottke.org full-time is possibly the dumbest economic decision I've ever made in my life." You don't say? First, people were going to make money selling shoes on the intarnets. Now they're going to make it off their blogs. The only person to market a successful diary was Anne Frank. And we all know what happened to her: the Nazis came and took her away.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:14:29 -0800

there's a guy near my apartment who does something similar. He holds up a sign by a traffic light, and people give him loose change. (Confidentially, I've always suspected he drives a lexus, and parks it just out of sight.)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:14:38 -0800

$30 is a micropayment?

By: NinjaPirate

NinjaPirate — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:15:04 -0800

Such optimism is to be admired, lauded and always avoided.

By: DrJohnEvans

DrJohnEvans — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:17:09 -0800

I like the term "micropatrons".

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:17:29 -0800

Well, if this dosn't work out, he can probably make money off micropayments.

By: tidecat

tidecat — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:17:37 -0800

Does anyone else see this as incredibly narcissistic?

By: yoga

yoga — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:19:58 -0800

How is this different from, "help me pay off my credit card debt" or "help me fund my makeover"?

By: Hartster

Hartster — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:20:03 -0800

Only in the way that anybody who is self-employed is narcissistic.

By: buriednexttoyou

buriednexttoyou — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:21:03 -0800

I think Kottke's ok, he's in my bookmarks, but he's going to have to do something really awesome to earn my money.

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:22:05 -0800

How is this different from, "help me pay off my credit card debt" or "help me fund my makeover"? The same way that "help pay the Mefi bills!" can be argued. Content has a value. I just hope he's done some research before doing this.

By: shoepal

shoepal — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:22:54 -0800

Maybe one day Natalie Portman will say something like "Kottke was one of those kids with the flies all around him, but look at him now." /garden state But seriously, why not move somewhere where the cost of living isn't exorbitant? Send him to a small town in Alaska or Mississippi. That would make things interesting.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:23:00 -0800

It will take 1,667 people donating $30 each year to get Jason to $50,000 gross. Somebody who knows better than me can speak to whether that's enough for a single person to live comfortably in NYC, and I do wish him the best, but I'll be very suprised if he hits that threshold. More likely he'll be offered, and will be unable to turn down, a number of freelance opportunities and will find himself just as torn re: site vs. outside work activities.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:24:09 -0800

The only person to market a successful diary was Anne Frank. Gotta give a shoutout to my Pepys!

By: riffola

riffola — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:25:05 -0800

There was a time when Jason's blog was interesting, I am sorry to say but ever since his move to NYC his blog's quality in my eyes has gradually decreased. If he had tried this in 2000 or even 2001, I would have contributed and believed he could make a living out of it. Based on where his blog is right now, I honestly don't think it's worth $30 per annum. Good luck to him, I hope he manages to do this.

By: gwint

gwint — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:25:50 -0800

I read kottke.org almost daily. I admire him for giving this a try. I sent some green his way, although I agree with others-- $30 does not a "micropayment" make. Also, regarding daringfireball, I couldn't agree more. I also donated a little money to John and have been a bit disappointed with the constant fundraising posts.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:25:59 -0800

ssf: for 6 months, my gf and I were living off of 35,000K a year and we live on the Upper East side. so yes, if he gets 1600 people to pay him money, he'll be fine.

By: chill

chill — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:28:34 -0800

With the greatest respect to the guy, there are bazillions of blogs out there, his site would have to expand massively for me to feel like contributing to his salary. After all, the stuff on his site will just wind up on waxy.org an hour or so later. That said, good luck I guess, he seems like a nice guy. And if it all goes the way of the pear, well, it is better to regret the things you have done in life rather than the things you haven't

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:29:06 -0800

also, i don't read kottke and would be happy to see him fall off the face of the earth but if people give him money, then more power to him. and if anyone feels the need to feed a dream, i have several that could use financial backing.

By: angry modem

angry modem — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:29:27 -0800

I wish I could just use a fixed-width font here, because I want to use figlet to express a very large word consisting of the letters L, A, M, and E. Get a job, Mr. Lebowski.

By: tidecat

tidecat — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:32:15 -0800

Hartster: Self employed folks, like other workers, typically provide a known service/good in exchange for compensation. We're not sure what kottke is selling us. His personality? His filter on the interesting out there in the world? One of the things I've loved most about blogs is that they are share-ware of a sort. Now we're contemplating being asked to pay for the chance to read one chap's musings?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:32:26 -0800

Well, if this dosn't work out, he can probably make money off micropayments. God I'm tired. I meant google adwords. *sigh*.

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:33:54 -0800

At least personally, I question why he didn't post about this prior to jumping ship. He might've been linked to MeFi et al. and gotten himself a nice focus group to find out how he could make this work. I don't see it working, personally. I know Kottke's weblog is not going to disappear even if it fails, so I would venture a guess that the "what I can get for free, I will" will prevail.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:35:22 -0800

kottke could also try begging in subways. some beggers can make around 40k a year. of course, he'd have to play a song and maybe dance a little jig. or sell candy to raise money for a basketball team. but that would be more than he's offering right now.

By: scottq

scottq — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:35:31 -0800

Does anyone else see this as incredibly narcissistic? Maybe you're not familiar with Kottke. I bet you a 'micropayment' he gets a big stiffy from reading his own website.

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:40:25 -0800

The freelance work has dried up Jason? No?

By: shoepal

shoepal — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:41:51 -0800

When I lived in SF I would always see this guy with a cardboard sign that read "hungry" and a hat in Union Square. One day, I was riding the BART to visit a friend and the guy was on the same train. He got off at the same stop as me and so I decided to follow him. He had an apartment in the Mission! He probably made more sitting on his arse than his neighbors did working honest jobs. I've also read about corners in Manhattan where you can make like $300/day sitting with a cup and sad look on your face. And stupidsexyflanders, I don't doubt that thousands will donate to Kottke. A lot of people never move beyond him and to them he is the "blogosphere." But like Riffola says, he's not been relevant or interesting in years. And not that it really matters, but it strikes me as "interesting" in the chin scratching way that sylloge (Stewart of Flickr) made the FPP. It seems a bit disingenuous.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:47:13 -0800

I never understood all the kottke hating. Is it just "a-list" envy? Something else? Because accusing a blogger of narcissism is like accusing your minister of piety, isn't it?

By: gwint

gwint — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:38 -0800

Kottke continually posts great links-- and Metafilter seems to think so too.

By: Hartster

Hartster — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:51:02 -0800

"We're not sure what kottke is selling us... Now we're contemplating being asked to pay for the chance to read one chap's musings?" Umm, yeah. We're being asked to donate payment in return for his writings on stuff. There's an incredibly large number of people who earn a living through their writing on stuff. When I give money in exchange for a copy of, say, The New Statesman I'm helping John Pilger pay his mortage via his writings on stuff. Your choice of payment model, in my everso 'umble opinion, whether its adverts, donations, employment or whatever doesn't make you narcissistic. As it stands, I haven't read Kottke for years, simply because I have relatively little interest in the subjects he writes about and he's not a good enough writer to overcome that, in line I should say with 99% of the population.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:53:34 -0800

Kottke's site is interesting enough; his links are usually quite good. 30 dollars is hardly a micropayment, but it isn't a crap load of money either. I think this is an interesting experiment and I wish him luck with it. (I donated.) I thought it was a bit suspect for sylloge to post this as well; it almost seems like advertising.

By: Quartermass

Quartermass — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:56:34 -0800

We hate it when our friends become successful We hate it when our friends become successful Oh, look at those clothes Now look at that face, it's so old And such a video ! Well, it's really laughable Ha, ha, ha ... We hate it when our friends become successful And if they're Northern, that makes it even worse And if we can destroy them You bet your life we will Destroy them If we can hurt them Well, we may as well ... It's really laughable Ha, ha, ha ...

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:56:47 -0800

And not that it really matters, but it strikes me as "interesting" in the chin scratching way that sylloge (Stewart of Flickr) made the FPP. It seems a bit disingenuous. Yeah look's like it's been 3 years since his last FPP and this is what he considers "Best of the Web?" Now im wondering if kottke will make a FPP next time ludicorp has a big announcement. I love how these guys no longer contribute to the community unless it's to shill a friends product.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:00:06 -0800

Are we looking at the modern day equivalent of "I'm going to quit my job and start a farm?" If so, I'll gladly take some oranges.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:00:16 -0800

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:01:22 -0800

By: angry modem

angry modem — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:02:01 -0800

One thing to remark on, is that as a piece of content being sold, the site has a really poor format. Bland, boring, and somewhat cluttered. It would be difficult to get someone to pay 30 dollars a year for a site like that with multiple writers, let alone one hack. Add onto that the sense that you're paying for one man's bills when he is physically able to go out and get real employment, and you've got a failure waiting to happen. Then again, maybe he's just trolling, and to that I would say 'bravo'. Duping little sycophantic shits out of their cash is an admirable effort.

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:02:22 -0800

A picture speaks a thousand words...

By: shoepal

shoepal — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:02:33 -0800

gwint, just because something says "via kottke" doesn't (always) mean he found it first or made it interesting. Due to his traffic, statistically speaking, he's going to get credited with a lot of things that were probably "via" a variety of other sites. I notice the same thing with "via boingboing" and "via waxy." [no offense to waxy, as he is really good about crediting/acknowledging his sources.] on preview: Very funny, Quartermass. How about Suedehead or Bengali in Platforms?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:02:47 -0800

I love how these guys no longer contribute to the community unless it's to shill a friends product. When a blog that has been running for 7 years suddenly tries a new business model, I certainly think that's a novel thing that hasn't been done before. I would have posted this myself if I was up any earlier. This is significant, since few have tried anything like it before.

By: annathea

annathea — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:02:49 -0800

I thought it worth donating as a token of thanks for years of cool web entertainment, and on the promise of more potential 0sil8-like content (Yes, I wish it were 1998. Sue me).

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:03:04 -0800

Hey - Mr Kottke Man.... If you're reading this and your webcam is on, could you hold up a big sign that says "Metafilter Sux Lame Haxxors" or some such nonsense. Please.

By: notmydesk

notmydesk — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:03:20 -0800

I like the kottke. I think he has great links, and I visit him every day. Still, his output better increase by a factor of fifty if he wants to justify a $30 donation. Those of us with websites dream of living off them, and we always watch developments like this with a mixture of interest and jealousy. Honestly, I'm not sure if I want him to succeed or fail.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:04:57 -0800

And we have a winner in the category of Best Spooge Animation by Someone Concerned About How"Sensitive Users" Might React To SG Ads.

By: mischief

mischief — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:08:59 -0800

Of all the websites I regularly visit, MeFi is the only one that has ever mentioned kottke significantly, and I still haven't visited his blog.

By: kokogiak

kokogiak — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:12:50 -0800

Risky, dumb, bold, interesting? - Yes. Narcissistic? - A little, but so what. Valuable enough to pay for? Don't know - let's find out. (I believe so, but that's just my opinion and my money) I think for all of the discussion that this has already inspired, it's definitely a worthy post. Stewart probably put this here since it's a great place to toss a subject out to be dissected and scrutinized (or worse yet ignored). Good for him for taking a risk and stirring things up a bit. I'll be watching with interest. Wonder where things will end up a year from now.

By: gd779

gd779 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:16:28 -0800

The comments in this thread make me embarrassed to be a member of MetaFilter. Kottke's taking a large personal risk, turning down ads that he could doubtless make money off of, and just hoping that his work is appreciated enough that people will be willing to chip in for more of it (but if you don't chip in, that's okay too). And for this he gets vitroil? Sheesh. Best of luck, Jason. (I donated).

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:18:38 -0800

We don't reward stupidity here.

By: rschroed

rschroed — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:13 -0800

I think most websites are underpriced. I'll gladly pay $30 bucks for a year of kottke. I'd pay $30 for the last year of kottke, and this year will (probably) be even better. To those hatin' on kottke - Could you recommend a blog that I should be reading instead? Similar topics, less "narcissism".

By: angry modem

angry modem — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:20:42 -0800

To those hatin' on kottke - Could you recommend a blog that I should be reading instead? Similar topics, less "narcissism". I recommend a real book. Maybe a piece of nonfiction.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:22:52 -0800

Personally, I don't understand this kind of "business" model. Doesn't part of the appeal of bloggers come from knowing they're "real people" that live normal lives and also happen to be able to filter some interesting content out of their experiences and share it with others? It seems like these "i want to live off my blog" business plans just end up cheapening their site by putting it at the center of their lives. Thus, the quality suffers because it's now part of a profit motive. That's just my way of looking at it. There are literally thousands of other sites that will easily replace kottke if readers start to lose interest. I wish him well, and all, but I personally don't see it happening.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:24:25 -0800

I recommend a real book. Maybe a piece of nonfiction. Those update everyday for seven years now? I hadn't heard of that development.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:24:28 -0800

I'd pay to see more of his monkey. That monkey is dynamite.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:27:04 -0800

thisafternoon i'm going to invent the permalink, which will revolutionize my idea for a real-time updatable reverse chronological web site featuring periodic archival. i'm going to be soooo fucking rich!

By: ShawnStruck

ShawnStruck — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:28:41 -0800

Now let's take a comic like Sandwich Shoppe-- divide their forty thousand readers in half, and multiply that by fresh, bee-sweet honey. That's a HOJILLION DOLLARS! Now, subtract three vanilla wafrers to pay the Billy Goats Gruff, and you've got a HUNDRED KABILLION MILLION DOLLARS!

By: rschroed

rschroed — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:29:22 -0800

I recommend a real book. Maybe a piece of nonfiction. Really? Malcom Galdwell perhaps?

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:19 -0800

I like the way you framed this post sylloge. I used to keep up with Kottke but somehow started drifting away. I don't think it was so much because his blog changed as much as so many other good ones captured more of my attention. Who knows, now that he is devoted to this full time it may get better. It probably has to if he wants to make a sustainable business out of it. The first round of donations should be easier then the continuing ones. People sort of feel like they are paying as much for all they enjoyed in the past as for the coming year. Then it becomes a business decision as to whether the continued payment is worth the content. In any event, good luck to him.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:57 -0800

rschroed: To those hatin' on kottke - Could you recommend a blog that I should be reading instead? Similar topics, less "narcissism" Anything . . . just, God, anything else at all. Please. Livejournal if you must. Just not Kottke. For the love of God and all that is holy, not Kottke. Actually, come to think of it, probably the best blog that I've read, while not meeting your qualifier of 'similar topics' is wherethehellismatt.com, by that guy who did the video of himself dancing in various locations all around the world. He's your typical anti-social embittered geek, but his writing and experiences are just absolutely stellar. I'm not one for travel myself, but the blog is just fascinating - one of the few where I've started from day 1 and read through every update straight through.

By: melixxa600

melixxa600 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:31:09 -0800

The only person to market a successful diary was Anne Frank.

Gotta give a shoutout to my Pepys!

The person most famous for hatching the idea of marketing her diary was Anais Nin. It was others who benefitted from Pepys' and Anne Frank's diaries - posthumously.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:33:09 -0800

Ugh. Mornings. Mornings where you use a tags instead of i tags.

By: nixerman

nixerman — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:33:48 -0800

Well I wouldn't pay for Kottke. He throws out the occasional cool link but it's rarely something genuinely interesting--at best it's "neat." His commentary is usually sparse and not particularly insightful. That said, I'd be very interested to see what price the market will set for his product. $30/year is steep though. He should take Google ads and cut that by 70%. The notion that ads may bias him but his thousands of numerous "micropatrons" won't is just wrong. Soon as there's significant money involved he's already representing somebody's monied interests, the way I see it.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:36:29 -0800

I think he might have been better able to swing it 2 years ago, but the day of the blogger is at hand... if he were providing insightful news or political coverage, he'd be on a goldmine, what with all the news organizations mentioning "bloggers" with every third breath. As it is, kottke provides safe, comforting, non-offensive musings and content -- A warm blanky and a glass of milk. I've never read Kottke regularly, and I can't remember the last time I even visited his site, but the truth is, if anyone can do this, kottke probably can. Best of luck to him.

By: driveler

driveler — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:38:05 -0800

I love Kottke. 6- and 12-String Guitar is an awesome album.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:39:38 -0800

Do I have to me using Microsoft to make micropayments to him? Good luck to him. Never read him, don't plan on paying $30 to start now. As has been noted, there are millions of blogs to read for free.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:40:37 -0800

if he were providing insightful news or political coverage, he'd be on a goldmine, what with all the news organizations mentioning "bloggers" with every third breath. As it is, kottke provides safe, comforting, non-offensive musings and content -- A warm blanky and a glass of milk. I don't know, you couldn't find this interview anywhere else. I suspect if he's devoting his time to the site, we'll see more things like that.

By: chill

chill — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:42:04 -0800

You shouldn't compare this to Gruber, but Andrew Sullivan. A couple years back he asked for donations with no promises of what was to come, and no secret content of any kind. Anyone remember how he did on it? He pulled in over $80k in a few days. But Kottke currently produces very little on the way of original content, unless I'm missing something. I don't agree with half of what Sullivan says, but he at least produces a lot of well written "opinion" virtually every day*. Kottke is mostly links to the same stuff that everyone else is linking to on the internet, with the occasional extended commentary that in my opinion no better written or thought provoking than many other blogger's commentary out there. * Whether this was the case when he had his own pledge drive I don't know, I didn't read him back then.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:46:28 -0800

fenriq, you don't actually have to pay 30 dollars to start reading him now. You can just go to his site. Or not. Whether the site is cool enough to warrant donating any amount of moneys is up to his readers to decide. The site is free regardless. This read is so typical of Metafilter -- lots of bitching and snarkiness. Is it really so offensive that he is attempting to raise funds for his website? I would find him putting ads up more obnoxious.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:47:07 -0800

don't plan on paying $30 to start now. As has been noted, there are millions of blogs to read for free. He never said folks had to pay to read, or that the site would not be free. It's as free as PBS is, and this is just the annoying commercial once a year that you can ignore and continue watching for free. I'm really surprised at how far people are going to shit on this idea. It's completely voluntary and doesn't change his site in any way. There are millions of blogs plastered in ugly ads (like MetaFilter) and he's trying to buck that trend while also testing the waters to see if patronage can keep him afloat. Hasn't everyone here with a blog ever wished they could do something like this? I don't understand where all the talk of his boringness or imminent failure is coming from. I'm really curious to see if it works out for him and think he'll do ok, but then I like to read his site and am looking forward to him spending more time and effort writing it.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:48:56 -0800

I don't know, you couldn't find this interview anywhere else. yah, the average blog reader is dying to know who's dancing in car commercials. ...we'll see more things like that. hardly the recommendation you seem to think it is!

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:54:01 -0800

If you don't think it's interesting you don't have to pay. Shocking! If you don't think it's interesting, you don't need to bitch. Also shocking.

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:57:30 -0800

I'm really surprised at how far people are going to shit on this idea. I'm not, to be honest. People look at this type of thing from their 9-5 world and, whether they like it or not, can't deal with the jealousy they get from what he's doing. So they lash out. They try to show their superiority by knocking what a terrible blogger he is or how they "never read it". The reality is that they want him to fail and to have to go back to getting a job because then they don't feel so threatened by him doing what they would love to be doing. Seeing through offhanded snarky comments to their motives is Psychology 101. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't post about how disinteresting he is.

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:58:42 -0800

disintersting = uninteresting. Should never have had that 2 day old sushi for lunch...

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:58:51 -0800

yah, the average blog reader is dying to know who's dancing in car commercials. Yeah, you're right, no one cares about tv commercials.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:59:50 -0800

If you don't think it's interesting, you don't need to bitch. you are obviously new to the internets. and dflemingdotorg: you seem to know me better than i know myself. can i sign up for your newsletter?

By: shoepal

shoepal — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:01:12 -0800

mathowie, we know he's your friend and you're pulling for him. You don't have to defend him so adamantly. As many people have mentioned, if anyone can pull it off, Kottke probably can. He's like the Matt Lauer of the Blogosphere.

By: angry modem

angry modem — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:04:42 -0800

I've just been informed via email that my assumption of no ability to use fixed-width fonts is false.

 _        _    __  __ _____
| |      / \  |  \/  | ____|
| |     / _ \ | |\/| |  _|
| |___ / ___ \| |  | | |___
|_____/_/   \_\_|  |_|_____|

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:04:53 -0800

Kottke says: "I should be on the webcam most of the day today. I guess you should be able to tell roughly how the above is going by how much I'm smiling." The man does not look happy. I suppose he could be smiling behind his hand, but it doesn't seem likely.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:05:23 -0800

I'm really surprised at how far people are going to shit on this idea. I went to high school with a guy who went into pop music. He made millions ... millions. I cringe when I see him on some tv show or magazine. I knew the guy when he was an AV geek, playing with reel to reel tape recorders. Truth is, if I met on the street, he probably wouldn't recognize me. If you mentioned my name to him, he probably wouldn't even remember it. I really really hate him. So it's a lot like that, Matt.

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:05:35 -0800

can i sign up for your newsletter? Send me a micropayment and we'll talk.

By: Chrischris

Chrischris — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:06:34 -0800

Problem with Kottke is that he's too slow. 90% of his links are day-olds or too NYC-centric. I just looked at his front page, and frankly, about 75% of his content was news yesterday. Speed to market, combined with trenchant commentary (not, "aaww thas fucked up," or "look look how really cool this is!") is worth paying for. Links obviously pulled off MeFi, NYtimes, de.licio.us/popular, and Arts&Letters are not. Doing the sort of really hardcore surfing and writing necessary to earn what amounts to a yearly magazine subscription's worth of money will be really hard work. I hope he succeeds, but I really really have my doubts... You know, if this were a perfect world, right now Josh Schachter's gold-plated jag would be pulling up next to Mathowie's Bentley to get a Grey Poupon hookup...

By: me3dia

me3dia — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:07:20 -0800

I like the term "micropatrons". I prefer "microserfs."* Has a nice ring of fealty to it. I kid. This is just a more in-your-face request for donations that appears on hundreds of weblogs, popular or otherwise. No big deal, and I wish him luck. *Yes, I'm aware of the Douglas Coupland book. The allusion was intentional.

By: davebush

davebush — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:08:24 -0800

I wonder how much Megnut's recent flight to freedom had to do with this.

By: rich

rich — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:08:59 -0800

"oh I wouldn't pay to see him" blah blah blah "koettke is no longer interesting.." "He's too slow..." See, I look at this from a different angle. Koettke has stated his personal site has suffered due to his need to work for a living. This goes to the comment that Koettke isn't as interesting or on the ball or whatever as he was, in say 1999. But, let's also look - he's not talking about running a blog. He's talking about a return to creating a personal site. Osil8 was mentioned, as well. Personal sites used to be much more than blogs of today. It goes back to the style/substance argument of years past.. that blogs would ruin the personal space because they make it so easy to publish online.. But also, that people don't have the time or energy to put into personal sites anymore. A good personal site is a morphing entity that requires a lot of time and energy to keep goin. You have notable exceptions, like your zannahs, but where's the latest design trick or experiment from Glassdog or Donea? If Koettke 'goes retro' and is able to start creating for creation's sake, it won't be a blog, but more along what he mentioned - much more related to art for art's sake. I, for one, am intrigued. I'm sure he made sure he had the eyeballs, at least from a site tracking perspective, to make a go of it. And as far as I can see, he said he would not restrict content based on payers/freeloaders.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:10:21 -0800

I would find him putting ads up more obnoxious. I'll try to explain - when a person puts up ads on their website, they make more money for themselves without me paying for it. Because my ISP - and most ISPs - charge me the same flat rate regardless of whether I use 3GB or 3.03GB a month, there's nothing coming out of my pocket and it doesn't bother me. If I really want, there's AdBlock, so I can prevent myself from even seeing advertisements. Since I am never going to buy anything from a web advertisement, ever, nor have I (to the best of my knowledge) ever happened to have bought anything I've even SEEN in a web advertisement (thus punching a neat whole in the 'subtle influence' theory), the money in this situation flows directly from large, generally harmful corporations to the admins of websites I read without affecting me in the slightest. However, when a person with a popular website announces that they will base their entire income on donations from readers, they impose a sense of guilt and duty to contribute upon their entire readerbase. If I wasn't already annoyed by the horrific amount of narcissism that plagues every last A-list blogger, this would push me over the edge.

By: yankeefog

yankeefog — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:12:48 -0800

Kottke's announcement: Think of kottke.org as non-crippled, fully-supported shareware...you only pay if you feel it's worth supporting. Metafilter's reaction to it: One of the things I've loved most about blogs is that they are share-ware of a sort. Now we're contemplating being asked to pay for the chance to read one chap's musings? Um. There's nothing wrong with failing to read a link. There's nothing wrong with snarking about a link. Doing both in sequence, however, is not likely to vest your rage with heavyweight moral authority. Still, I can see why people are so annoyed with Kottke. The man has been providing free content for years, and now he is quitting his paying job to provide even more free content, based solely on his faith in the honesty and good will of his fans. Really, he's worse than Charles Manson.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:13:48 -0800

mathowie, we know he's your friend and you're pulling for him. Part of it is that, but part of it is that few people seemed to even read what he wrote before shitting on it. It's not a micropayment, there's no "pro" content, and it's basically voluntary donations and no ads. That's as reader friendly as you can possibly get. This thread reads like a string of really bitter people posting knee jerk reactions and I don't understand why. If this post said that "atrios.blogspot.com is quitting his job to blog and is requesting donations" instead of kottke.org, I wouldn't race to say "never read it, but it probably sucks and I hope he fails miserably." If I didn't read it, I wouldn't care, and I wouldn't post about it.

By: jnthnjng

jnthnjng — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:14:18 -0800

I'm really surprised at how far people are going to shit on this idea. Matt, I don't see what you see at all. I see some people talking about how they think he's boring, some people wishing him luck, and a decent amount saying that they don't really care either way. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this thread is filled with vitriol. Seems pretty tame to me. [shrug]

By: chill

chill — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:21:05 -0800

People look at this type of thing from their 9-5 world and, whether they like it or not, can't deal with the jealousy they get from what he's doing. So they lash out. If you read the comments of the people on the "I think this is a bad idea" side of the fence, you see that people have reached that opinion for a wide range of reasons. Some think he is dull, some think he is interesting but not interesting enough to donate $30 to, some think he is interesting but has made a bad business choice, some think it is a cheek just to ask people to send you money for doing what hundreds of thousands of other people do. To apply cod-pyschology and dismiss all that opinion as "Jealosy" is kind of silly if you ask me. Kottke is a relevant guy in a field that most MeFites are interested in, and he has made a bold move. It is bound to provoke debate, no?

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:22:03 -0800

I don't see the reason for all the bashing, although I've long assumed Kottke.org's popularity is down to little more than the fact that it's been going for a long time. That said, the 'micropatron' idea is a nice way of framing micropayments, and if it proves a success, I can imagine it being adopted by a lot of lower traffic sites wary of pissing off readers with advertising, but in need of a little revenue. If I find something useful every day, I don't mind paying for it - I'm sure most of us spent a few quid on our favourite share- or donationware apps in the last year, and there's no reason why weblogs shouldn't adopt that model. So sylloge is Mr. Flickr, and posted this, and one of the raffle prizes for Kottke.org micropatrons is 'Ten Flickr Pro accounts from Ludicorp'? That is a wee bit iffy, no?

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:24:17 -0800

The man has been providing free content for years, and now he is quitting his paying job to provide even more free content, based solely on his faith in the honesty and good will of his fans. I think quonsar has a better chance of supporting himself full-time off of the "free content" he's been providing for years to MetaFilter. Well, or at least make enough to bribe Matt to reinstate him the next time he gets banned. I don't read Kottke, but rubbernecking at wrecks is human nature.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:24:18 -0800

very wee.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:26:58 -0800

Matt, I don't see what you see at all. i think i am starting to get it. matt thinks that because google turns up lots of hits about car commercials on his own site that "everyone" cares about car commercials. this explains a lot. it's a very difficult thing to explain "wet" to a fish.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:27:02 -0800

It's not a micropayment, there's no "pro" content, and it's basically voluntary donations and no ads. I got that. That's as reader friendly as you can possibly get. This is where we disagree. I like ads (outside of interstitials) because I can trivially block them, and those I don't bother to block simply get added to my mental 'never buy from this company where it is possible to avoid their products' list. What I don't like is guilt or the implication that I am somehow stealing.

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:30:04 -0800

It is bound to provoke debate, no? I was more headed at the ones who were shitting on him, not the ones who aren't interested (which is fine but I still don't know why someone truly uninterested is even posting about it). If you read above, I don't even think it's a good idea, I just find it really ridiculous that people would go out of their way to say things like: but that would be more than he's offering right now. We don't reward stupidity here. Maybe you're not familiar with Kottke. I bet you a 'micropayment' he gets a big stiffy from reading his own website. These are the ones I was mostly addressing.

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:31:17 -0800

I don't think it was so much because his blog changed as much as so many other good ones captured more of my attention. That says it all for me. Kottke was one of my first regular reads (next to Dack and Dong) and I found the medium tantalizing. He did it well and was one of the only ones doing it but man, since 1998-99 there are so many more who are doing it just as well or better. Thats not a slam on Kottke but just a cold hard fact; that there is so much more out there to hold my attention and fascinate me. With that said, if he can pull it off, he'll be my hero. I'd give my left nut to be able to sit at a computer, munching snacks in my underwear, knowing that I had micropayments streaming into my bank account.

By: thejoshu

thejoshu — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:31:32 -0800

I'm just not at the point yet where I'll donate for blogging. I'm willing to pay for a lot of virtual content, but blogging? Sure, your personal website is fun, but it makes me want to scream "Get a job!" when I see forms for donations and posts about it being a full-time opportunity.

By: beezy

beezy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:32:35 -0800

I dunno. Step back a minute from the personality, and think about this in the abstract (I've never met him, and I don't really read the blog) - if a lot of people are reading something every day, doesn't that give him a right to think there might be a demand? Enough that he can float out a proposal to possible investors (that's the people who make donations) to say 'hey, I gave you good stuff, I can give you even better stuff if I had more time - invest in me, and you'll get better stuff?' I'm thinking if there's been a proven demand for content, and someone wants to try to make a go of internet busking, what the hell? Why's it so lame? Some people are going to drop off, some people are going to give money. Eventually, he'll have to decide that if you pay money, you'll get access to better stuff. Whether we like it or not, good information and design isn't free. It's just not. We can bitch about ads, or we can subscribe. That's about it.

By: angeline

angeline — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:37:16 -0800

I recommend a real book. Maybe a piece of nonfiction. Ah, delicious irony, a long-time MeFite telling someone to step away from the internet. Gave me a giggle. Besides, reading blogs is more environmentally conscious. I mean, no trees are dying because Jason Kottke is blogging, whereas I have several of your beloved non-fiction tomes that were probably a significant portion of the Amazonian rainforest. Save the Earth, read Kottke! /flippancy Problem with Kottke is that he's too slow. 90% of his links are day-olds or too NYC-centric. I think this has the potential to change for the better if he's concentrating fairly exclusively on the blog. At least, I'd hope. I'm not sure I'm up to paying him $30, given the infrequency of my visits to kottke.org, but I'm actually considering donating something. More power to anyone who has the chutzpah to want to make money off of something they - and others - think they do well. I'm just not at the point yet where I'll donate for blogging. I bet you have a Paypal receipt from mathowie that says otherwise.

By: artifarce

artifarce — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:38:49 -0800

As anyone considered that kottke being "slow" or not producing a lot of material could change simply by the fact that he's unemployed now? Blogging is so time-intensive, I could see how it is a full-time job in its own right. Yet if it's more enjoyable, how is it so bad that yet another person decided to leave the 9-5 rat race and essentially become self-employed? I envy him.

By: rich

rich — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:42:35 -0800

The web has changed a lot since its inception - in purpose and what people look for. I'm reminded of the commercial where the guy exercises for 5 seconds, then gets upset he hasn't lost any weight.. we have become a society of 'get it now' without asking what do we really want. Most people here seem to think this is a navelgaving exercise for Jason, and I think they're missing the point. It's an experiment to ask 'what else can the web offer'? It's an attempt at things that have gone by in the past like mp3.com for independant bands to offer their garage tapes to the masses. It's looking at if there is an opportunity for talented people to delve into their art and have it support them, as opposed to working as a web monkey for a design firm. Think of the bigger picture, the implications success for Koettke could have on the next wave of innovation on the web if talented people can make a living doing nothing but working on creating content and new web innovations for no other purpose than creating for creating's sake. It was during the time people could spend hours on personal sites that ubiquitous things of today like mouseovers and CSS driven design were born. Commercial ventures are typically not the innovators - it's those in their garage inventing something that drive the future. Get your mind out of the box of just blogging - koettke's past was way more than just content, and I hope to see more of the past creative experiments than just timely updated entries about a trip to the john.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:42:56 -0800

What I don't like is guilt or the implication that I am somehow stealing. That reflects your own feelings when you see the word "donation." I don't feel guilty when people request donations, I just ignore most of them and donate to the ones I feel are worth it. As a quick example, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace send me crap in the mail every week that I tear up. I don't feel guilty when there is a nice sunset and I'm not "stealing" when I take a hike in the woods. Recently when I noticed a Tsunami donation and one for a very specific type of cancer research and another person's legal fund to fight an unfair lawsuit, I donated, sans guilt. If you don't feel guilty about blocking ads, I'm sure it's possible to pass over donation requests without any lick of guilt.

By: COBRA!

COBRA! — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:43:53 -0800

This reminds me of a thought I had the other day... that blogging for a living would actually be hell. Like, think of Wonkette. At first, it sounds like it'd be lots of fun: sit around, write funny things, get paid for it. But then look at the actual production schedule involved. To give people reason to come back, you've got to come up with new content a couple of times a day, no matter what's actually happening in the world. No news? Tough. the beast needs to be fed, so trot out the gin-and-ass-fucking jokes. I love to write, and love getting paid to write, but it seems to me that it would take about a week for full-time blogging to feel like a joyless grind.

By: nedrichards

nedrichards — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:45:06 -0800

What I don't like is guilt or the implication that I am somehow stealing. You see Ryvar, this is sorta the bit where you go insane. Given that he pretty much specifically disavows that in his entire post. Really if this offends you so much just ignore it, it's not hard, there#s plenty to do on the internets you know.

By: sellout

sellout — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:49:56 -0800

He'd probably be better off holding a rabbit hostage.

By: spilon

spilon — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:55:31 -0800

Damn..... From where I sit, I see a guy making a gutsy choice and taking a chance on an unproven idea, just because he wants to. That's something that 99% of us would never do, and maybe that's the reason for some of the shitting-upon-kottke taking place in this thread. Personally, I don't know the guy. I do read him regularly though, and think its a good site. Kinda ugly, but a good quick morning read. Many times, I have bought a beer for people who have contributed far less to the world than that. The way I see it, that's all he's asking for. Maybe he shouldn't have tossed that $30 figure out there.... I didn't even notice it at first, and I prefer the 'if you think this is worth something, please consider donating whatever you think its worth' approach. But still, that is basically all he's saying, and apparently his tip jar will accept anything from $5 to several hundred million. So, tip him if you like, and don't if you don't. What's the big deal?

By: Ljubljana

Ljubljana — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:56:10 -0800

I don't know. A yearly subscription to Harper's is $15 a year; The Atlantic is about $30. I realize that they're only monthly, but they provide a hefty amount of professional, original content that is (IMHO) world-class. Even The New Yorker is $46/year. I don't think any one person can compete in that class. Even if the links are doubleplusgood.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:56:21 -0800

ned: I made it pretty clear that this was an objection to the general principle of the thing, rather than Kottke in particular. I mean, I don't like pretty much every A-list blogger out there (Cory Doctorow being probably the big exception) but while it isn't going to affect me regardless, with everybody saying that this was a daring new model I thought I'd speak up as to why I personally found it an obnoxious one. He may specifically disavow it, but the guilt is still hanging out there, implied. mathowie: I don't feel guilty when there is a nice sunset and I'm not "stealing" when I take a hike in the woods. Recently when I noticed a Tsunami donation and one for a very specific type of cancer research and another person's legal fund to fight an unfair lawsuit, I donated, sans guilt. If you don't feel guilty about blocking ads, I'm sure it's possible to pass over donation requests without any lick of guilt. Observing a nice sunset and taking a hike in the woods hurts nobody. When donating to the Tsunami relief fund I did so out of an earnest desire to help rather than a feeling of moral obligation. When I block - or more frequently just ignore - ads, I screw over large companies hell-bent on destroying the lives of every individual human for the sake of their shareholders. But when someone imposes a moral obligation on me, that's when I get annoyed.

By: FreezBoy

FreezBoy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:57:49 -0800

It's nice to see that there's another site that y'all bitch about as much as Metafilter.

By: tizzie

tizzie — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:03:40 -0800

Ljubljana, Kottke is generating content daily, so to me a more accurate comparison would be the $40 I send to Salon.com every year, or the $75 I send to NPR. The quality of their content makes me want to support them, even though I could read/listen without contributing.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:04:52 -0800

Is Kottke equivalent in any way to Salon or NPR?

By: donovan

donovan — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:05:24 -0800

But when someone imposes a moral obligation on me, that's when I get annoyed. Wow. I just don't see where you get that at all. Sure, he's asking for money but I get asked for money from all sorts of people and organizations all the time. It's a request. It's not an imposition of a moral obligation--you're making up that story, Ryvar. I'm surprised that nobody has really made the connection but what Jason is doing seems very much like what public broadcasting does. He's having a fundraising drive and giving away valuable prizes to patrons. So far he's much less annoying in his fundraising than my local NPR station. On preview: FeezBoy, that was funny.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:08:18 -0800

I'm guessing to some people, yes he is equivalent to the NPR and Salon, otherwise they wouldn't make the comparison. And Ryvar, what are you going on about?

By: angeline

angeline — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:12:13 -0800

Is Kottke equivalent in any way to Salon or NPR? Perhaps not to you, but to others he may well be. It's all a matter of personal opinion, isn't it? Much like the donation amount itself, really. You give what you think it's worth, or don't give anything. On preview, chunking express said.

By: angeline

angeline — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:12:45 -0800

um, what chunking express said, rather.

By: frenetic

frenetic — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:15:47 -0800

This is a pretty nuts reaction. Much like how Slashdot flipped out over the asbestos blog recently. Regardless of whether you like kottke or not, or if you think he's worth $30, if he's successful at this, it means something good for the web. It means there's nothing stopping any of you from doing the same thing. The "micropatrons" idea is a really interesting one and you should read what he actually wrote before jumping to conclusions. It's not synonymous with "micropayments", there doesn't seem to be exclusive private content. All he's saying is "if you want me to keep doing what I'm doing full-time, you can support my existence by activities by sponsoring me". Either it'll sink or swim and I think it'll be interesting to find out which.

By: justgary

justgary — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:16:18 -0800

Kottke continually posts great links-- and Metafilter seems to think so too. I read Kottke.org about every other day. More often than not the links he posts I've already seen elsewhere. He has a huge readership so of course many people bring them here, but his links are run of the mill everyday links that you can find anywhere. No way his links are worth any money. And if he's now going to be making money off his site maybe he should credit those links? Or does he just pull them out of the air? People look at this type of thing from their 9-5 world and, whether they like it or not, can't deal with the jealousy they get from what he's doing. Wow, we get both sides, people who hate kottke and people who condemn anyone who disagrees with the man. Believe it or not there's quite a lot of people who would not be jealous of someone sitting all day in front of there computer trying to make a living. Even if he makes it I don't envy him. Kottke left metafilter a long time ago. And the individual who posted this link hasn't posted a link in almost 3 years. And in the thread Kottke has the man behind metafilter (and friend) covering his back. It's really funny to watch. Kottke will have no problem at first. People will fall over themselves to give to their hero. But there's no way his blog now is worth 30 bucks. Now that all his time will go into his site, maybe it will in the future.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:17:46 -0800

For Matt's sake, I hope it works for the guy. I don't think the Andrew Sullivan comparison is apt, as has been noted before. Many view donating to Sullivan in the same way as donating to MoveOn or the Bush campaign, it's to promote an agenda. Kottke doesn't have one. I've never been to his site until today, so I can't comment on what makes it more special than any other place, but it makes sense that someone who is very popular in their field would be able to self-sustain through their hobby.

By: rich

rich — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:22:21 -0800

justgary; Why is it only about the links? I think Koettke's thinking bigger than that.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:24:28 -0800

I think it's an interesting idea, and I wish him well. I don't read Kottke very often at all, but I think I'll try to look in every now and then just so I can see what he's up to and how having more time to work on his site improves it. I'll most likely donate a bit, but $30 is a bit steep (and not a "micropayment.") Wired charges, what, $12 a year? The Atlantic Monthly, as Ljubljana said, a wellspring of fascinating writing, is itself $30.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:24:54 -0800

I'm apparently doing a poor job of expressing myself. If I were a reader of a large site with many corporate ads like MSNBC or Slashdot, when I read those sites and thereby reap benefit for myself I get something from them. Now, when I ignore their ads but still download them I help those sites earn money while simultaneously siphoning off money from their sponsors which down to nearly the last one are large corporations hell-bent on profit for their shareholders regardless of who suffers for it. It's win-win: I get content, content providers get ad revenue, and shareholders get screwed. When I take a walk through a park and observe a sunset, I am merely observing a natural process and while I benefit no entity gives up anything for that benefit. When I conduct a transaction it is because something I need or very much desire is held by the other entity - I get the object of my desire and they get (usually) some profit in exchange for the object which they usually do not especially desire. When I do donate it is because I specifically want to help regardless of whether a request has been made or not. But, when I reap the benefit of another's work and they request aid that I would otherwise be disinclined to provide, then I am gaining something while they are are losing something and I feel guilt because of this. I have a problem with this guilt being imposed upon me, just as a general principle, and this is why I try to avoid donation-driven sites unless the content is extremely compelling.

By: gsb

gsb — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:27:49 -0800

>No way his links are worth any money Yeah, it's not $1 a link or anything. Jesus! I believe the snark and sneers are just people afraid to see him succeed. mathowie's defense seems a tad raw knee-jerk defending, and sylloge making this a FPP is Ad-filter, surely not best of the web... Mmmm.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:32:23 -0800

Ryvar, I didn't mean to sound harsh earlier, but my point is simply this: Kottke isn't imposing on anyone, least alone you. Reading his entry, I get the feeling to him this is a grand experiment, one he hopes will succeed. I did not think "damn, Poor Kottke; I hope he doesn't starve -- better send him some cash-moneys". He's making an effort to try something different, and if you are interested in the cause, he is asking you support him. I don't think guilt should come up anywhere in that equation.

By: meg6212

meg6212 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:36:20 -0800

To me, a blog does a lot of things... one of them is allow a person to share a large part of themselves - their thoughts, feelings, opinions, what have you - and by doing so contributing something (hopefully) to those who take the time to read what they have to say. You could compare blogging with people who write books about their lives - which note: people PAY for. Only this medium allows for even more interactivity, which makes it more powerful and more useful all at the same time. Plus Jason isn't charging people to read his blog, he's simply asking for donations... if you don't want to donate, you don't have to and can still continue to read what he writes as much as you please. I can imagine most of us who blog on a regular basis would love to take a year to devote to it - just like most artist's would like to devote themselves full time to their work. And some get lucky with grants or even the rare patron - so that's what Jason is doing here as far as I'm concerned. I haven't been a regular reader of his for a long time now, but when I heard what he was doing I gladly contributed because even though I don't have much money to spare myself, I think it's a powerful experiment that could go either way and at least deserves a chance. I don't know if it's viable... but I do know I'll be reading Kottke.org more often again.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:37:35 -0800

face it: if kottke farted, his pals would blog it and make statements like "after belching daily for seven years, kottke is trying a new and different gas release method!"

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:38:31 -0800

chunking: I understand why you think that, and I hope you understand that while mine may not be the most conventional set of ethics, there is a sort of twisted internal logic to them. I think this is one of those things where differences in ethical systems means we're just not going to be able to fully agree, and that's fine - the universe is filled with differing opinions.

By: megnut

megnut — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:47:01 -0800

Ah Metafilterians, with your reactionary rants and inability to read beyond the first line of a post! No wonder all of us narcissistic a-list weblogers stopped frequenting this site years ago... Can you people even read? Jason doesn't even use the word micropayment in his post. He proposes the concept of "micropatronage." P.S. I'm Kottke's ex-girlfriend, am also suspiciously posting to MeFi after a long absence, and friends with sylloge and mathowie. We all have been in cahoots for a very long time.

By: keswick

keswick — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:48:12 -0800

oh god, i'm in total agreement with quonsar. that's it, time for a little break from the internet

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:51:15 -0800

I believe the snark and sneers are just people afraid to see him succeed. Right, because nobody ever snarks and sneers about anything on MeFi until this Kottke thread? "Man quits day job to panhandle at self-built onramp to Information Superway" is not exactly a headline that elicits fear from its readers. But you're surprised by a few guffaws?

By: rich

rich — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:52:21 -0800

quonsar; that's just being cynical.. I'm not one of koettke's pals or regular readers, but I can appreciate the potential of talent, and especially when the talent is given a blank canvas with not limitations set by others. Ryvar; one thing - do you support the painters or sculpters or other artists that you may have the opportunity to see (provided they are alive)? If you're in New York, did you go see the gates in Central Park are give the artist your money out of a moral obligation? Yes, some artists are supported by government grants, or corporate payouts or museums, but I'm sure that you have been able to take advantage of art in the past without paying for it, and feeling no moral obligation. That you feel a moral obligation in this circumstance is because the 'artist' is standing in front of you saying "Yeah, well, I don't have a regular job. This is my job." (let's not argue over if Jason rates as an 'artist' or not.. I'm using the term loosely for illustrative purposes) I imagine you would not have the personal pocketbook to support everything that others create, yet don't get paid for by you (either directly or indirectly through taxes, etc). (as a side note, seeing megnut up there; I'm not an A-lister, and never really hung with the old school crowd, even though I've been around since that time, and have no emotional attachment to koettke's success or failure, but I have always 'believed in the web.')

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:53:36 -0800

When I block - or more frequently just ignore - ads, I screw over large companies hell-bent on destroying the lives of every individual human for the sake of their shareholders. It sure is funny how I cease to be human once I buy some stock! Haw haw haw.

By: angeline

angeline — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:55:37 -0800

I can imagine most of us who blog on a regular basis would love to take a year to devote to it - just like most artist's would like to devote themselves full time to their work. As Randy Milholland of Something Positive (note: generally not terribly work-safe) is now doing, thanks to generous fans who thought he had a commodity worth paying for. Of course, Randy still has to deal with a small crowd of critical jerks, but again - that's why this sort of thing takes some nerve as well as no little confidence in yourself and what you have to offer. I personally find that admirable.

By: jnthnjng

jnthnjng — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:58:21 -0800

I'm not one of koettke's pals or regular readers Clearly. You haven't been able to spell his name correctly once during this whole thread :)

By: brownpau

brownpau — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:00:38 -0800

> P.S. I'm Kottke's ex-girlfriend... :'(

By: FieldingGoodney

FieldingGoodney — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:04:35 -0800

What's this guy actually gonna do on any given day? He needs 8 hours a day to run a single website? What has he got against lucrative freelance work?

By: gleuschk

gleuschk — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:11:09 -0800

Cahooters! wait, that came out sounding different than i thought it would.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:12:33 -0800

Wow. Threads like this make me ashamed of every having been part of this "community". I pop into kottke.org every coupla days and usually find something interesting. I've never met the man and don't really care to. That said, I like his site, and will donate something when I'm able. When I saw his post today I knew someone would have posted it to MeFi so I popped over even though I've only made one post here since mid-December. The fact that many of you are shitting on a suggested donation of $2.50 per month is pretty crazy to me. That's the cost of a single bus ride in my city. A lot of you are behaving as if the guy is holding the web hostage and he won't release it unless you meet his demands. D y'all go into B&N and hold up books by authors you can't stand and scream, "I can't believe they want $25 for the new [whoever] book! This is crazy!" Back when I was doing Victory Shag and work was getting in the way, I mentioned I was going to wind it down. Many, many people wrote and asked me to just make it subscription based (a number of them suggesting $10 a month). I could have lived on it but the thought that I couldn't keep it going--and kacking out after taking money--seemed far too depressing to consider. Still, many people sent me paypal donations and some cash (and other items) via snail mail. It was nice to see people thought something I was doing was enhancing their lives in a way that they felt eager to pay for it. Perhaps I'm naive or out of touch but I would think that the vast majority of people would want to quit their jobs and do something they enjoy, that's creative, and be able to live on it. (In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't want to know anyone who doesn't want to do this--unless for them that is their job.) Does this mean we all have to throw money at everyone who attempts it? Hardly. But discouraging anyone from trying--regardless of what you think of them or their project...? That's just fucking embarrassing. I don't know about you, but with all the crap in the world that we have to pay for, I am genuinely elated to find that rare thing that I'm happy to pay for. For instance, over the span of a couple years, I donated, I'd estimate, a few hundred bucks to one of my favorite sites. I did this via text ads, covering the cost of membership for those who couldn't afford it, server $ donations, paypal donations to the site's creator as part of a birthday gift, etc. None of it was mandatory; I could have kept coming here for free (most of you do); I could have stopped coming altogether. The same goes for Jason's site.

By: chaz

chaz — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:13:44 -0800

I really don't see that much "shitting" in this thread. Some people think this is a bad idea, that's all. If you have no emotional investment in Kottke whatsoever, it's easy to say you don't like the idea, that you don't think it will work, etc. I don't see how that's any different from talking about any other idea/concept/website that gets mentioned on this site. Since Jason is such a great guy, of course his friends will feel hurt when they read negative reactions to his concept. In any case, I am excited about this idea. I know another guy who is now 'blogging for a living' and it's an exciting concept, because if you can make it work it would be a wonderful thing. I hope that Jason is a pioneer for this, showing people how it can be done and how one can support himself through his content production online. The most frustrating thing about Kottke.org through the years is that you sense there's a lot more going on that he doesn't have time to elaborate on or publish. Combined with a great readership, this could go places. I hope he turns the site into a "one man magazine" with lots of different types of content, including a daily blog but also stuff like interviews, parody sites, mini-web-apps, fonts, etc. If he starts to ramp up production in that direction, and if I find utility in what's he's doing, I will become a patron, just as I am with a local radio station that provides me with a lot of great content.

By: snowgoon

snowgoon — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:16:30 -0800

I've read Jason's site for a long time, on and off, I'm no crony but I have enjoyed reading his site. Whether you do, or not, is of course your choice based on your personal opinion. Now, I'm guessing that he has a good idea how many people visit his site every day, and I'm guessing this played a large part in his decision. He suggests a nominal $30 'donation' (micropatronage if you will) and I'll bet a pound to a penny that he has factored in a percentage of his visitors donating that amount. After all, be it grand experiment or narcistic self-promotion, without the ability to pay the rent I doubt he would be trying this. Anyway I've not donated, yet, but will give Jason some time and see what he comes up with. If I think it's worth throwing a few bucks at, to show my appreciation, not through guilt or as forced payment, then I'll do just that.

By: Danf

Danf — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:19:05 -0800

I am considering sending 5 bucks. . i hardly ever read kottke.org but I also find, that when I DO, it's very informative and his posts about any given issue are among the first, and very comprehensive. His blog is obviously the product of a lot of intelligence, organization and hard work.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:19:08 -0800

Ryvar; one thing - do you support the painters or sculpters or other artists that you may have the opportunity to see (provided they are alive)? If you're in New York, did you go see the gates in Central Park are give the artist your money out of a moral obligation? Yes, some artists are supported by government grants, or corporate payouts or museums, but I'm sure that you have been able to take advantage of art in the past without paying for it, and feeling no moral obligation. That you feel a moral obligation in this circumstance is because the 'artist' is standing in front of you saying "Yeah, well, I don't have a regular job. This is my job." I've never been to Central Park so I'm not sure what the setup is there. Is it something like there's chalk artists or something and you toss coins in the hat, that kind of thing? The only time I was in that situation (I don't get out . . . ever, basically) was on a roadtrip where we found this incredible metalworks sculptor somewhere between Seattle and Mt. Ranier. You got out of the car and could walk around and admire all his work on his lawn. There was a little drop box if you appreciated it. I put in a twenty before we left. At the time I wasn't really thinking very rationally about the ethics of the situation. I just knew that I wanted to give something back for what I had gotten from it, and I did. Guilt and a sense of moral obligation never entered the picture. Maybe art is different in that it evokes an emotional response for me that weblogs, especially those centered on links, generally do not. I think the key phrase from my last ethics comment that applies here are "they request aid that I would otherwise be disinclined to provide." I wasn't disinclined. It sure is funny how I cease to be human once I buy some stock! Haw haw haw. It's a lot more complex than that but entirely off-topic to this thread. Shareholders are merely the catalyst in the process through which the virtual entity destroys people's lives and physical environment - this is another one of my ten page posts at LEAST, so my IM is on my userpage if you seriously want to talk about it.

By: benjh

benjh — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:21:32 -0800

I think Kottke (and I hate calling people by their last name, even if it is their website's name as well) would do well to use PayPal's subscription system. While it would not afford him the "guaranteed" income, it would make people more likely to sign up. For $3 a day, you can support Jason Kottke's efforts to make the web a better place. I know I'd love to be in his place, thinking you could make a living just writing on a weblog, or at the very least, just writing. It is an aspiration of mine for some time. (Corporate sponsors... sponsor my web site today... for only $35,000, you get a big honking banner across the top of every page.)

By: Dukebloo

Dukebloo — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:23:06 -0800

Would you be willing to pay $30 a year for Metafilter? How about for some up-and-coming web magazines that operate on a daily basis, say The Morning News, The Black Table, etc.? And how much for up-to-the-second pro blogs in the Gawker empire where advertising is used? Gawker? Gizmodo? Wonkette, etc? How much for Boing Boing were it to be ad free? How much for Fark? How much for the individuals' blogs you frequent? Curious to see what range of dollar-value folks assign to their daily reads that are currently free to access. Please name and value other sites of your choosing.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:24:23 -0800

I also dont really understand the objections in this thread. Although, to be honest I didnt think this was that post-worthy either. :) This is a great model, if he can make it work. Its the old community-supported artist model and its as old as civilization. I'll probably throw some money in the tip-jar. Then again, I'm the type that usually contributes to local arts organizations here in the SF Mission because I want them to stick around. I dont read Kottke that often. To be honest, I mostly go there because everyone else goes there. But it'd be really interesting to see him succeed and perhaps start a new wave of free-form content (vs. political) bloggers take off. Oh, and I will tip a bit extra on behalf of Ryvar so that he doesnt have to feel guilty.

By: Mid

Mid — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:24:28 -0800

Meg: it's pretty sucky to make a big deal about not participating in a community but then pop out of the woodwork to insult the community over a handful of comments you don't like.

By: Dukebloo

Dukebloo — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:25:00 -0800

Also, for Kottke fans, many of whom appear to say that $30 is a bit more than a micropayment. How much do you value a year of Kottke.org?

By: dabitch

dabitch — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:27:08 -0800

I want him to succeed. The invasion of ads everywhere which barely brings in any cash for most users anyway, is really getting on my nerves, and I offer to pay them away from the sites I visit. If I were a steady Kottke reader, I'd plunk down a bunch of bucks when I had some extra cash, yes. Thirty seems steep because it's a "big" number at once, but I wish him the best of luck. Dukebloo, I'd probably pay thirty a year for Metafilter. Conversely, that is just a few bucks more than it is to access my archive of over twentythousand ads for one year. A bargain I say.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:15 -0800

What's this guy actually gonna do on any given day? Sit in front of his webcam looking glum to elicit sympathy, he already hinted at that. I read his site more or less daily because his URL is usually the first to pop into my head when I am bored, and he always has at least one or two good links I have yet to see elsewhere. His site used to be a lot better, but if he does bring it back to life over the next few months I would pay the $30.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:40 -0800

Ah Metafilterians, with your reactionary rants and inability to read beyond the first line of a post! No wonder all of us narcissistic a-list weblogers stopped frequenting this site years ago... ...because all of the "reactionary rants" are about the first line. also, how come people who disagree with Kottke, disagree with what he is doing, disagree with his "business model" are automatically assumed to be knee jerking or "shitting" on this thread? Could it be that people out there maybe, just maybe, have valid reasons to post what they do? I personally think that the 3 man Mexican band who plays in the subway to be more worthly of receiving my money than Kottke. That's the reason why I disagree with Kottke's approach because there's no way i would donate. But that's my opinion, I'm not everyone and I don't assume that everyone is just like me. His business plan isn't new and his content isn't jizz worthy. But it's obvious that a lot of people here think otherwise and so go give Kottke your money and further the greatness that is this "blogging revolution".

By: Dok Millennium

Dok Millennium — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:30:54 -0800

I've found the the blogosphere, and the universe, is incredibly generous when you follow your passion. I've been very lucky with Blogumentary contributions. I've also been very lucky quitting my job and jumping off a cliff to see what alternate futures await. I'm more than happy to give Kottke $30 to do the same. Best of luck to Jason and Meg, going their separate ways. Meanwhile, visiting MeFi is not unlike Miroku's wind tunnel. :-/