With all the talk of BOTF vanishing I wonder if there is any merit to the final question posed here.

I wouldn't expect a straight answer from Geoff or management differing from, "Blah blah plenty of funding blah blah increased revenues blah we're remaining liquid," you know, the standard fare.

Perhaps Geoff is being particularly (ahem) candid these days because he knows the track is out on the downward screaming rollercoster and can therefore speak somewhat freely. After all, what are you going to do? Complain? Try that when there isn't even a site to log into anymore.

I dunno. It's not like I got the impression Slate was ever fat on cash (server bugs, errors, annoying non-Google-like ads. You know). Just a hunch.

That's always a possibility. It's never been a money-spinner. But not what Geoff was talking about.

out that most fray boards are not attached to regular articles and thus those stray boards, such as BOTF, are not perceived as serving any meaningful function as far as Slate management is concerned. Thus when nutcases keep pestering Slate management about hissy fit cat fights and flamewars on these stray boards they reminded Slate management that there is no outstanding logical reason for Slate to keep those boards in operation.

Yes, the Washington Post is belt tightening, but supposedly Slate is entirely self sufficient from their Internet advertisement revenue sources. One notices, however, that they still have not gotten around to replacing Geoff, who no longer works for Slate. He just dropped by on his own dime and time when Slate asked him to perform an emergency clean up on the worst of the offending boards . . . which just happened to be BOTF this time around.

Considering that Slate management has always been operated by gibbering fools promoted into their positions according to the Peter Principle it's impossible to predict whether they will hire a new editor/moderator for these Fray boards or continue to do without one or even deep-six what they consider offending and unnecessary open forums such as this board.

...Slate would be the last thing that WaPo would shut down. Not to say it couldn't happen, but if you're in the news business, right now wouldn't seem to be the time to get off the interwebs.

But I can't imagine Geoff coming out and just saying, "Hey everyone! Friday will be Slate's last day!" or some such thing.

Why have the servers and e-mail clogged up with swan songs and pleas one day prior? It would be tough enough as it is with a smooth running shut down. Best to just have everyone wake up, log in and be greeted with a 404 Can't Find the Server error.

So what do we hear from Janitor Fred?

"Yeah, I came in and whacked a few posters. You don't like it? You don't have to like it. I don't get paid by Slate but my loyalty is to them before you. And I do know that if you don't knock it off we will restructure the Fray to exclude you."

Translation:

"Restructure."

That's all you need to know. Maybe. "Restructure" meaning "reduction," "lay off," "RIF," etc. I don't think he actually said the word but that's not important. What's important is Slate is contemplating reducing it's web foot print. So I wouldn't be surprised if BOTF isn't the only thing to get the ax.

Even in the fat good ol' days of just a few years ago Slate wasn't pulling in the money. And now, today, the fat times are 7000 pts. and 50% in back of us (if you're a Dow follower). Newspapers have been hurting and bleeding terribly like a stuck pig for years and I suppose Wa Po is no exception. Times must be tough indeed for Slate.

And so what needs to be cut from the bottom line?

Hmmm. . .Slate seems like a pathetic little money sucking back water. . .

That's true. And Slate isn't hurting for money that much with the type of ad money they are getting paid these days.

The Slate ads are from companies like American Express ,Toyota and Lexus and Satellite Dish Networks and they are very pricey ads.

The advertisers pay Slate to show their ads naturally due to the good number of views and hits this place receives.

The high quality advertisers Slate has acquired are quite a cut above Popeil's set of Ginsu knives.

So money problems shouldn't be an issue with Slate, currently.

But that fact again as kevin arno once noted ties into the reality that because Slate is doing so well financially, they absolutely can afford to lose the problematic posters who pester them non-stop with nonsense.

They just don't need or want the grief. It's as simple as that.

They can easily afford to lose those who abuse the status quo.

It's that simple. Look at the ads they have here. they are not hurting for viewership nor ad income.

But not all interwebs are created equal.

Slate ain't no Drudge, Foxnews, CNN, or some other money maker.

And think about it. When was the last time you read a Slate piece? I can pretty much guarantee you read one more recently than I did. I think the last piece I read might have been a Hitchens rant on the Iraq War. Anything else? Why bother?

(I take it back. The last piece I read was about MetaFilter. I only skimmed it, checked out MeFi, and liked it. But before that. . .it's been eons since I read anything from a Slate hack.)

They could pull the plug on you and me, and never shed a tear. Hardly seems sporting of them, does it?

pretty much says it all.

Yep! We got lots of money! Lots of it! Not enough to update our web engine or hire a real editor but no matter.

Sounds like an orchestra on the Titanic.

If I have to slog through some bull Kinsley or Noah Whatshisface wrote to write something completely unrelated to the most recent Slate article I'll just forget about the whole thing. My posts are orders of magnitude more enjoyable to read than anything those guys grunt out.

True as that may be, they're also not doing badly. I just looked at Alexa, and Slate is in the top 1600 websites--during the election, they were in the top 500. So it doesn't take much to see that the problems of we little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

a huge opportunity to become the subject of a political science experiment complete with bespectacled Freudian disciples and lots of note pads.

I propose a citizen committee presided over by rotating ends of the spectrum. One month it could be Sarvis the Next CaliforniaDreaming....Demcom next followed by SgtRock....and so forth.

The Dynamics of such interaction could be the study subject of legend.

jo

You know that you are completely mad, right?

Dearth:

"During 2008, revenue generated by the Company’s online publishing activities, primarily washingtonpost.com, increased 7% to $122.7 million, from $114.2 million in 2007. Online revenue increased 5% to $35.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, from $33.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2007. Display online advertising revenue grew 17% in 2008 and 10% for the fourth quarter of 2008. Online classified advertising revenue on washingtonpost.com declined 3% in 2008 and 6% for the fourth quarter of 2008. A portion of the Company’s online publishing revenue is included in the magazine publishing division."

and this for the overall company:

"WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 25, 2009-- The Washington Post Company (NYSE:WPO) today reported net income of $65.7 million ($6.87 per share) for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2008, down from $288.6 million ($30.19 per share) for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007. Net income for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $18.8 million ($2.01 per share), compared with $82.9 million ($8.71 per share) for the fourth quarter of 2007. "

This is from their annual report for 2008. Not a great year; print was way down, online generated a profit, and the educational section was the rising star of all of their holdings. It would help if people started reading the annual reports.

Lets face it, for what ever reasons; WaPo does not like BOTF and maybe it is because of the spammers. It is not because of this place persay in that I think Geoff is right. I also think he was attempting to get a reaction from you all, which he did. I don't believe he got the reaction they wanted though. Slate isn't closing; but maybe, Ballot Box, BOTF, and The Bottom Line will and regardless of the hits (as I explained in my post to TK on a "Geoff" thread) they generate. Hits on line generate revenue from advertisers. Hits are top-posts and replies, openning articles (which you don't do), and are openning some of the ads.

My $.02

Hits are top-posts and replies, openning articles (which you don't do), and are openning some of the ads.

Speak for yourself, fella! I read Slate articles nearly every day.

You should try it. You'll learn something, I daresay.