Gersnet Main Site

[Frankie 8,148]

On 16/04/2023 at 23:13, Bill said:

It's been on my mind for some time but, since I only really use Gersnet forums, the content of the main Gersnet site has never been of that much interest to me.

 

That said, I can't help feeling it has deteriorated sharply in recent times. There used to be the wonderful facility to research past matches going back decades, or check details of current players, but that all seems to have gone. Player ratings (whatever that was) was introduced and then seemingly abandoned after a few weeks. I'd hazard that the site seems to have lost its way and it's hard to understand where it's going or what it's meant to offer. It's a shame to see it like this when so much more could be made of it. 

Sorry I have been ill with a particularly virulent case of man-flu, then away on holiday then catching back at work so just getting to this now.  Essentially, the lack of content simply comes down to time.

 

The main site essentially relies on external contributions - in the past we had match previews and other Rangers related articles which we could publish on a fairly regular basis from a variety of users on the forum (and elsewhere). Unfortunately, due to work and family commitments, I rarely have time to write stuff myself so I can hardly insist others do so as well. Quite simply I think the online blog is becoming less fashionable.

 

The player ratings were just some fun after I redesigned the site to analyse performance after games which I enjoy doing but had to defer because of work commitments as the season went on.  IIRC, I did ask on here for others to help around that time but got no volunteers.

 

Obviously we feature the podcast more heavily nowadays which I think is a great feature of Gersnet but it's modern video functionality as well the rise of social media means main sites, blogs and forums are much less busy as written content is consumed less. Even FF is nowhere near as busy as it used to be. That's why fanzines died and that's why the club's own site lacks content as well. Even The Athletic has stopped their Rangers content.

 

As for the archive stuff - due to the new version of the software that drives the site, I didn't have the ability to port all that over and, again, the original inputting of the data which came from the Chic Sharp file Bluedell references, took a long time to input on my own - time I simply don't have any more. The data entry is a tedious job and, whilst I'd love to re-introduce it, I'd have to set aside a good few months to do it.  There's a reason Rangers own version of such didn't get off the ground....

 

Now, I'd absolutely like to have more content on our main site platform that looks very nice and is featured on Newsnow and Google News - if lacking in regular content. Sensible Rangers relevant articles/commentary of any type are welcome and both myself and Rousseau can publish at fairly short notice (usually same day but certainly within 24-48 hours at the very worst).  And if anyone enjoys data entry then I can provide the facility to incorporate the archive stuff.

 

What I would close is with is that even a small venture such as Gersnet takes a lot of time to manage. I'm lucky that @Rousseauand @blueflagin particular help with the forum management/technical stuff and we have several excellent podcast contributors. However, 90% of stuff is done by me and at my own personal cost. We have adverts to help but that only allows us to run on a largely even keel cost wise. We took in £5 from February's ad traffic - ad spend is decreasing substantially right across the industry so it may be I just remove them completely. 

 

In closing, Gersnet has been around for the better part of 25 years now in various guises of which I was lucky enough to inherit 15 years or so ago. However, it's largely a one person exercise and merely a hobby that runs alongside my own life which, with two teenage girls, is busier than ever. Nevertheless, I can guarantee you the site will remain going forward but I'm afraid that without other contributions the main site is basically a splash page for the pod and forum rather than the resource it used to be. I apologise for that and am equally disappointed as you but there's only so much one person can do.

 

You - or anyone else - can submit content directly on here or by email via info@gersnet.co.uk

 

Thanks to everyone for their continued support!

[Gonzo79 13,589]

Thanks for that informative post, Frankie and for your hard work on the site.  I'll be honest though, I had hoped you were going to ask Bill for a square go.

 

I'd imagine a video of the square go would increase the site traffic considerably.  

[ranger_syntax 3,765]

33 minutes ago, Frankie said:

However, 90% of stuff is done by me and at my own personal cost. We have adverts to help but that only allows us to run on a largely even keel cost wise. We took in £5 from February's ad traffic - ad spend is decreasing substantially right across the industry so it may be I just remove them completely. 

Maybe something like Patreon would be better than ads.

 

Presumably a lot of potential patrons on there.

[Scott7 5,151]

40 minutes ago, Frankie said:

However, 90% of stuff is done by me and at my own personal cost.

Suspected as much.  Huge vote of thanks.

[Frankie 8,148]

11 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Maybe something like Patreon would be better than ads.

 

Presumably a lot of potential patrons on there.

Yeah, that's certainly possible but I don't want to charge anyone and I know my pod contributors feel the same.

 

Like I say, the costs are largely met so that's fine. Not in it to make money but do want to make the platform a useful one.

[ranger_syntax 3,765]

26 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Yeah, that's certainly possible but I don't want to charge anyone and I know my pod contributors feel the same.

 

Like I say, the costs are largely met so that's fine. Not in it to make money but do want to make the platform a useful one.

Yes, I get that. I wouldn't recommend charging for access to either the site or the pod. But it sounds like a handful of small donors would allow you to drop ads altogether.

[blueflag 378]

A wee bit late to this party, but, Frankie,  thankyou for giving us the platform and putting the effort into it, that you do.

 

I don't post as much,  I get really busy with work, but as you know happily keep the upgrades etc taking care of.

 

In an ideal world, I would find a technical solution to your data issues, but work has to come first for us all. 

 

 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

On 20/04/2023 at 14:11, Frankie said:

Yeah, that's certainly possible but I don't want to charge anyone and I know my pod contributors feel the same.

 

Like I say, the costs are largely met so that's fine. Not in it to make money but do want to make the platform a useful one.

To be clear, what sort of money would be required to make a significant difference?

[Frankie 8,148]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

To be clear, what sort of money would be required to make a significant difference?

Not sure what you mean.

 

If you want a stream of regular articles then it may be nowadays that writers expect to be paid. I doubt that would be much for amateur hobbyists like myself - say £20 beer money for a 1000-1500 commentary like I posted the other day -  but that would soon mount up if you wanted even one a week: £80 p/month, best part of a grand for a year.

 

However, I don't really want to pay anyone, don't want paid myself and don't want to ask anyone to contribute financially.  We break even so that's a win.

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Not sure what you mean.

 

If you want a stream of regular articles then it may be nowadays that writers expect to be paid. I doubt that would be much for amateur hobbyists like myself - say £20 beer money for a 1000-1500 commentary like I posted the other day -  but that would soon mount up if you wanted even one a week: £80 p/month, best part of a grand for a year.

 

However, I don't really want to pay anyone, don't want paid myself and don't want to ask anyone to contribute financially.  We break even so that's a win.

No, that's not what I meant and it wouldn't be sustainable anyway. I was thinking about how much it might cost to rid the site of adverts and still cover current operating costs.

 

How many active members are there - visitors and participants?