Comments on: Is 2+2 Deleting Sticky Posts to Quality Content?

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 05:02:08 +0000

@bravos1: Well I tend to agree with you.

By: bravos1

bravos1 — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:26:44 +0000

I think it is a huge stretch that Mason is taking here to weigh books sales numbers against various posts on the 2p2 website. I really doubt anyone is deciding to not buy a book because of strat posts on 2p2 meeting their needs.

By: Nat Arem

Nat Arem — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:39:40 +0000

Wow, pretty gross… Good post. I hope Mason rethinks this, he’s being a little silly in my opinion. The slowdown in book sales might be because of saturation, not because of a website (LOL).

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:11:47 +0000

@BSN: I completely agree with the comment about not monetizing the site properly. Nat Arem has made some similar comments recently.

http://www.natarem.com/poker-seo/twoplustwo/

all you’re left with is posts about Clonie Gowen’s boobs.

You say that like it’s a bad thing

By: BSN

BSN — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:02:38 +0000

One has to wonder about how well 2+2 is doing with monetizing the forums themselves. It is such a valuable and authoritative web property, and it should be incredibly lucrative on it’s own.

Without seeing the data, I’d still say that if I had a chance to move from a capital-intensive business model (2 years’ inventory???!!!??? Hello, carrying costs???!!!???) to a non-capital-intensive model, I’d do everything I could to facilitate the transition.

2+2’s value is 1) community and 2) organized and accessible information. Take away #2 and all you’re left with is posts about Clonie Gowen’s boobs.