# How expensive is it to run a forum like this? - Can't type in the message box???



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Oh, my cursor finally showed up.

Anyway, I keep reading how expensive it is to run a forum like this which seems to somewhat contradict my experience.

Maybe there is more to it than I realize, but......

For my webspace of unlimited size and theoretically unlimited bandwidth, I pay just a bit less than $100 per year and that includes one domain registration and the renewal each year.


Forum software like that used by some other Large Scale forums, ie http://www.phpbb.com/ for example, is free


The only other cost I can think of would be the possible cost of moderators.

Am I missing anything?

I realize that the software used by mls probably has a cost associated with it, however....oh, I better shut up now before I ger started on the forum software mls is using.


Knut


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

I know nothing of the cost associated with running this or any forum. But tonight it is running slower than a snail crawling up hill on molasses in January. Oh, and I just got my renewal email from the forum operator. I won't mention any names.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I pay about $12 a year to renew my domain. I pay around $100 a year for my web site and having my stuff backed up, but I'm getting a really good deal, since I also have joomla installed. 

But MLS is a commercial site, so the costs are higher. 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 09 May 2011 09:04 PM 
But MLS is a commercial site, so the costs are higher. 





I was wondering about that.

I'm with HostPapa, http://www.hostpapa.ca/features/
They list E-Commerce as some of their features and I don't see anything about a "commercial site" incurring additional charges.

Besides that, is mls really considered "commercial"?
It seems to fall somewhere between a totally non-commercial site and a fully commercial site where the only purpose is to sell things.

Knut


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

It charges money....therefore it is commercial. Simple from the point of view of the hosting companies.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I think it depends on the amount of data being transfered. There is some limit where you have to pay extra.


----------



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

The server is fine tonight.. There apparently are some problems with an upstream provider and have been for the last week or so. 

The short answer to how much does it cost is none of your damn business. The long answer is that MLS has many more visitors and data transfer than you think. In addition, due to the functionality requirements of the site, it runs on a dedicated server. Sure, we could run on some free software, running in a shared hosting account.. Then you'd REALLY be complaining about performance and the site getting taken offline for going over the bandwidth allocation.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Shad, so...if it's all upstream from you, is there a way to fix our access to MLS? I assume upstream means between the server and me. Maybe you're not seeing the page loading delays I am,, but they are INCREDIBLE right now. Is there anything we can do to help you find the source of these huge delays?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By ShadsTrains on 09 May 2011 11:10 PM 
The short answer to how much does it cost is none of your damn business.



Seems to me you're over reacting a bit Shad,

I specifically phrased this as a general question not specific to MLS.

I visit a number of similar Large Scale forums in Europe and also the odd other one in the US, they are at least as active as MLS if not more so, running on open source software - don't know if they have their dedicated server but they sure don't have these on-going problems that MLS is struggling with and the webmaster there never mentions having an issue with the cost to run the site - however, moderation is another issue, that takes a lot of time if done properly.


Knut


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

But tonight it is running slower than a snail crawling up hill on molasses in January. 
IMHO that is probably due to all the local kids deciding to watch last nights episode of [...]. My Comcast service slows to a crawl when school gets out at 3pm.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

My 1st class membership runs out in 3 days, but I'm waiting for them to resolve the inconsistent speed issue before renewing. It was better for a shot time yesterday but now it's back to dial-up speed mode again. ???


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

Hopefully this will help, its a show of my firebug web developer debugger in firefox, the purple area means waiting for packet. so its showing a 14.66s wait before the first packet even comes in. I have done a few reloads, consistant 10-14s wait times before first response, its NOT the ad servers.
Could be, massive bandwidth issue or database is bogged down and cant get the data together quick enough to send to the user (also activesocial script is acting slow too, 26.62s). It's more likely the bandwidth though (if his database didn't have an issue before it shouldn't now).
Click here for mylargescale.com load profile pic; 

Login and check apps to see if any are using the processor at 100%. if not, its a bandwidth issue (isp is having issue) not really anything that shad can do about it other than move his deticated box somewhere else or yell at the isp for a reason why they dont have multiple pipelines for an event like this.

I did this check at work on a 10gig connection (I work at an Internet Service Provider) 
Proof on connection:


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Shad called his ISP...and they discovered another customer's server had been hacked and was being used to run a denial of service attack on another server (not MLS). That sucked up all the bandwidth from the ISP and explains why it was so slow...and maybe there's been similar incidents in the past. Dunno...but last night was "new" to me...that level of slowness. It's normally runs fast enough that I don't notice delays here in San Diego.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Back up to speed for me. 

Later, 

K


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

I can't speak on cost. But finally I have someone who sees the same performance with Comcast after 3! Thanks Mr. Thorton. On the other side of the coin my kids contribute to my slow down 

KRS- Why are you wondering about the operating costs? I see you are a supporting member, do you feel you don't get the value from this site?? I find this to be a real good deal for the short money.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By todd55whit on 10 May 2011 01:54 PM 
KRS- Why are you wondering about the operating costs? I see you are a supporting member, do you feel you don't get the value from this site?


No, it has nothing to do with any of that or with the recent slow down at MLS.


My question wasn't specifically about MLS either; I just always wondered if there was some special reason why there is the impression that it's quite expensive to run a forum like this, some costs that I wasn't aware of and which I don't incur with the web sites that I have running.

And when Jerry asked the question on mls about the different versions of MS Office, I figured I can ask this question here which is just as "train related".


I asked my webhost what "unlimited" storage space and "unlimited" bandwidth they offer really means, and they insisted - it means just that unlimited = no upper boundary.

At the time I was a bit concerned that maybe I was reaching some softly defined upper limit on my web sites, but apparently not.

I know that uite a number of people here on mls have their own web sites -thus my question here.


Knut


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

For a good number of years I ran 2 web sites on my standard home isp account (just had to make sure the cable modem never lost it's lease). My cost was my monthly ISP access of about $40.00, which I was going to pay for anyway. I ran an outdated cpu box with a Linux operating system (free) using the Apache Web Server (free with Linux). I was not running any forums so my band width was never an issue, but free is still free. 

I have recently moved all of my sites to a commercial server. 

Bob C.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks like it's back up to speed.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By armorsmith on 10 May 2011 04:17 PM 
For a good number of years I ran 2 web sites on my standard home isp account


I have that option as well but that ISP web space is limited to only 100 Megs so I went for a commercial hosting site because it's so cheap and I don't have to worry about either storage or bandwidth limits.
I think I get a faster connection to the net as well and I don't have to worry about back ups (which I do anyway every once in a while, just in case).

Knut


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

Regarding hosting plans with "unlimited" anything, stay away! If it were true, Google would host with them and save billions. Unlimited really just means they don't want to commit to a number. At some point you're going to get an email saying you're using "excessive" bandwidth or storage and you need to stop. Or worse, they just cut you off. Or, maybe they reduce the performance of your account.

Bandwidth gets expensive if you're hosting a lot of pictures or videos. It's currently 15 cents per GB at one major provider. A GB goes a long ways with compressed pictures, but it adds up if you have a lot of visitors.

Another factor in hosting costs is redundancy. Let's say you host a site on a single dedicated server. If there's a problem anywhere the site goes now. It's common to move the database to a different server, so the servers can handle more load, but then you have even less reliability because either server going down is gonna kill your site. So you really need two web servers and two database servers, plus load balancers. Of course if your data center has a problem then none of this is going to help, so you need all this again at another physical location. There's no limit to how much redundancy you can have. (Most sites don't have much if any though.)

The good news is that because most of the hosting cost is the bandwidth and the redundancy, it's cheap to start a new site! Of course it's good to have a plan for making money once a site takes off (so you can pay for the increasing bandwidth and redundancy).

And yes, some forum software costs money. This forum software is probably expensive. I'm just guessing, but it's based on Microsoft technologies whereas most free software is based on open source technologies. Of course free software is a bit of a gotcha. It may be free to use, but then most people have to hire someone to customize it. Of course, commercial software might not even be customizable in the way you want, so that's not any better.

If it isn't obvious, this is what I do for a living. I'm a freelance software engineer mostly building software for the web.

In any case, no matter how much hosting costs, it's cheaper than people. It's everything else that makes running a website expensive. The hosting is a tiny fraction of the real cost.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Well, the snail is back on track, so to speak. Things are running at the speed I am accustomed to once again. I believe MLS is a pretty good deal for the money. I quit all of my magazine subscriptions awhile back so that I could continue here. Between this site and G Scale central, I am kept in the know as much as my brain want to handle.


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

Shad - I wasn't one of the folks who asked about the cost or complained about the speed (even though quite noticeable). However, I thought the "none of your damned business" could have been said less offensively.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By benshell on 10 May 2011 08:15 PM 
Regarding hosting plans with "unlimited" anything, stay away!


What you're suggesting is really unrealistic.
If i search for the ten top hosting sites, doesn't really matter which Web Host Review site I pick, all of the ten or the vast majority list storage space and bandwidth as "unlimited"

Here is one example:
http://hosting-review.com/hosting-directory/top-10-lists/Top-10-Overall-Web-Hosts.shtml

I agree tha "unlimited" doesn't really mean there is no upper limit as far as web space and bandwidth is concerned, but for all practical purposes for the average web site, and that's what we are talking about, there is no hard and fast limit.
I chiose HostPapa partially because they were the only site in the top ten list at the time that offered "green" power and their cost and features were as good as the rest.
Easy way for me to do something for the environment.
The other key criteria was uptime - I wanted something reasonably close to a 100% uptime guarantee.

I have been with them for more than three years now, never had a problem with any of my sites.

Sort of strange, of the dozen or so web forums and discussion groups I visit on a relatively regular basis, three use dedicated servers, mls and one European site and a Candian site.
These are the only sites that are down quite often and for long periods of time.

MLS was down again from just after midnight until just before noon today Eastern time.

The last two weeks were actually pretty good for the "dedicated server" European site - only four outages


date uptime dns connect request ttfb ttlb

2011-05-10 97.94 0.008 0.130 0.131 0.405 0.405
2011-05-09 98.97 0.010 0.161 0.162 0.589 0.601
2011-05-08 100.00 0.008 0.129 0.130 0.441 0.442
2011-05-07 100.00 0.008 0.129 0.130 0.379 0.379
2011-05-06 100.00 0.003 0.120 0.120 0.549 0.549
2011-05-05 100.00 0.002 0.119 0.119 0.407 0.407
2011-05-04 100.00 0.004 0.121 0.121 0.613 0.622
2011-05-03 100.00 0.002 0.120 0.120 0.520 0.520
2011-05-02 100.00 0.002 0.119 0.120 0.552 0.575
2011-05-01 98.96 0.003 0.121 0.121 0.593 0.611
2011-04-30 100.00 0.002 0.120 0.120 0.379 0.381
2011-04-29 100.00 0.003 0.120 0.120 0.345 0.357
2011-04-28 100.00 0.002 0.119 0.119 0.345 0.374
2011-04-27 98.97 0.002 0.119 0.119 0.643 0.646

----------------------------------------------------------------------
minimum 97.94 0.002 0.119 0.119 0.345 0.357
maximum 100.00 0.010 0.161 0.162 0.643 0.646
average 99.63 0.004 0.125 0.125 0.483 0.491


On the "shared server" web host that I use and monitor, outages are very seldom and if there is one it lasts only a few minutes.
I have actually never tried to access any of my sites and haven't been able to get in because there was a server outage.

The last two weeks for the HostPapa site shows this up time


date uptime dns connect request ttfb ttlb

2011-05-10 100.00 0.006 0.014 0.015 0.410 0.418
2011-05-09 100.00 0.006 0.014 0.015 0.437 0.454
2011-05-08 100.00 0.006 0.044 0.045 0.467 0.473
2011-05-07 100.00 0.079 0.087 0.089 0.538 0.544
2011-05-06 100.00 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.440 0.446
2011-05-05 100.00 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.435 0.440
2011-05-04 100.00 0.042 0.043 0.043 0.933 0.947
2011-05-03 100.00 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.804 0.810
2011-05-02 100.00 0.001 0.023 0.023 0.928 0.998
2011-05-01 100.00 0.001 0.027 0.028 0.831 0.905
2011-04-30 100.00 0.000 0.027 0.027 0.641 0.713
2011-04-29 100.00 0.083 0.110 0.110 0.876 0.950
2011-04-28 100.00 0.000 0.027 0.027 1.019 1.094
2011-04-27 100.00 0.000 0.028 0.028 1.248 1.321

----------------------------------------------------------------------
minimum 100.00 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.410 0.418
maximum 100.00 0.083 0.110 0.110 1.248 1.321
average 100.00 0.016 0.032 0.033 0.715 0.751


You're right that a large portion of the cost of running a forum is the man power cost.
But that also relates directly to the stability of the software and the web hosting.

I find that Shad and his team of moderators spend a lot of their time explaining to people how to perform various functions on mls or to look after hosting and/or software issues.
Luckily, all of the mls members tend to be well behaved








So the moderators jobs in that respect is minimal compared to many other sites


Knut


----------



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

Actually, our uptime average is still 99.9% I have an external monitoring service. Last night however, the application hung.. It looks like it happened shortly after I went to bed, so I didn't see it until I got to work this morning. The moderators all know my cell number, so if this happens and you can get a hold of one of the moderators, I can get it fixed pretty quick. The long term fix is some upgrades, and I'm working on those.


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

Knut, I also advise against shared hosting, although for a personal site or a traditional small business site it's probably going to be fine. But we're talking about a site like this... a site that gets a lot of visitors and has some paying members. For a site like this it should not be hosted with shared hosting, or on a host with "unlimited" bandwidth (and it's not). 

By the way, I didn't realize that pretty much every shared host is advertising unlimited bandwidth now! I guess I learned something today. I guess it's not practical to find a shared host that doesn't advertise this way. 

My favorite host right now is Rackspace Cloud. It's a cloud based system, which based means you can start and stop servers anytime you want, and you pay by the hour. For their smallest server it's only $11/month. Yeah, I know it's more than twice the cost of many shared plans, but it's worth it. There's no one else on the box that can slow your site down or open up security holes. And you can install whatever software you want. And you can remove any software you don't need! You do have to know Linux to set it up however. It doesn't come with a control panel for your servers. I also have an account with VPS.Net and have been really impressed with them too. They are a little more expensive, but have more options for things like control panels. If you prefer more managed hosting, I've had good luck with Liquid Web VPSs for the last five years or so. They are too expensive though so I'm in the process of moving all my sites off them. As soon as you get into the world of cloud servers, VPS servers, and dedicated servers you won't see "unlimited" bandwidth advertised anywhere. Again, it's fine to run a personal site or small business site on shared hosting. Most of the time the uptime is acceptable and your bandwidth use will be low. But you really can't (or shouldn't) run a larger site like this that way.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

benshell, 

how expensive! 
i pay less than 30 $ a year for 100MB with 15 GB traffic per month. 
in more than seven years it was down just twice. (plus anounced downs for maintenance once a year)


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

How many other large scale forums are there? There's LargesScale Central, there's Large Scale Online, there's the British Garden Railway site--are there any others?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By benshell on 11 May 2011 11:31 AM 
Knut, I also advise against shared hosting, although for a personal site or a traditional small business site it's probably going to be fine. But we're talking about a site like this... a site that gets a lot of visitors and has some paying members. For a site like this it should not be hosted with shared hosting, or on a host with "unlimited" bandwidth (and it's not). 



What specifically is the downside with shared hosting? The actual experience I have seen so far is that shared hosting is more reliable than having a dedicated server.


MLS doesn't seem to be any bigger or be any more active than some of the other forums that use shared hosting. For instance, MLS a few minutes ago had 39 people on line (26 members and 13 guests), when I checked the Buntbahn Large Scale forum at the same time, it uses shared hosting and open source software, they had 27 people on line, the Large Scale database site which is also using shared hosting also has the same order of magnitude of visitors, we don't track visitors on an on-going basis, but on a daily basis there were up to 730 unique visitors without any problems or slowdowns.

And on the database, each visit downloads at least one large 1200 pixel photograph so the bandwidth use per visitor is a lot larger than for the typical forum where the download is typically just text. 


Cloud computing and storage?
I like to stay down to earth especially after the number of high profile issues people have had with cloud computing.
Not ready for prime time in my opinion, but each to his own.

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Shared hosting puts several servers on a shared machine, right? So a DOS against one will kill the rest. That's a pretty simple and fundamental concept. Besides, hardware is cheap, only the "free" hosting companies have to resort to sharing resources. You think Bank of America, American Airlines, and the IRS use shared hosting? 

Trying to base your decision on just a few model train forums is not a large enough data sample. 

Greg 

p.s. a 1,200 pixel picture? 24 bits per pixel x 1200 pixels / 8 bytes per bit is 3,600 bytes... nothing.. maybe 3 or 4 ethernet frames...


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I see another terminology confuzer.... "Shared Hosting"... it means ONE computer running several websites... but some people think it means one website existing on several computers.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 11 May 2011 12:31 PM 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); How many other large scale forums are there? There's LargesScale Central, there's Large Scale Online, there's the British Garden Railway site--are there any others?


Yes, there are others but not necessarily in English and a few are somewhat restricted.

In English there is the Trainboard which claims to be the original Internet Train Forum, the G-Scale section activity has really slowed down since the G-Scale moderator left.
http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/forumdisplay.php?f=166

He opened a Yahoo group focusing on USA Trains items, that group is quite active - the USATrainsRegistry


Speaking of Yahoo Groups, there is the G-Scale, the G-Gauge and the LGB Family forum, all not very active.

Then the Big Train Operator:
http://bigtrainoperator.com/soapbox/bb/index.php

And of the Aristocraft forum which is mentioned on mls every once in a while
And HJ's forum:
http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/phpBB2/index.php 
Then a bunch of European forums (mostly in German):

The original Gartenbahn-Forum which goes back to the days when none of the existing English-speaking Large Scale forums existed:
http://www.gartenbahn-forum.de/

also:

http://www.buntbahn.de
http://www.spassbahn.de/forum/
http://www.lgb-fan.de/forum/
http://lgbfreundesaar.kostenloses-forum.be/
http://s1gf.de/
http://modellbahnen.cadosch.org/jos/forum/4-gartenbahn
http://gartenbahn.doku4you.de/phpBB2/index.php?sid=f56ab1f5d2adffa8f7c79f26c00e45e5

And I probably missed some.

Knut


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

A quick search and I found an article talking about the advantages and disadvantages of shared hosting: http://www.best-web-hosting-companies.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-shared-hosting/ . There may be some advantages, but every one of the disadvantages listed is a deal breaker for many sites. If your business depends on your website, it's not worth the risk of using shared hosting. That said, I don't know of any large scale forums that are the primary income for the people or companies running them. So perhaps they can get away with less.

Regarding cloud computing, in the early days of Amazon's AWS platform there were some limitations like storage as you mentioned, but all that has been solved. AWS is still a bit advanced for most people I think, but others like Rackspace Cloud and VPS.Net have taken the core concepts of cloud computing and made it cheap and easy for the masses. A large business might still want to run a data center with their own servers because it might be cheaper or more flexible for very advanced requirements, but for most sites out there cloud computing is great and it's quickly taking over the VPS and dedicated hosting markets.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11 May 2011 01:11 PM 
Shared hosting puts several servers on a shared machine, right? So a DOS against one will kill the rest. That's a pretty simple and fundamental concept. Besides, hardware is cheap, only the "free" hosting companies have to resort to sharing resources. You think Bank of America, American Airlines, and the IRS use shared hosting? 

Trying to base your decision on just a few model train forums is not a large enough data sample. 

Greg 

p.s. a 1,200 pixel picture? 24 bits per pixel x 1200 pixels / 8 bytes per bit is 3,600 bytes... nothing.. maybe 3 or 4 ethernet frames... 


Oh boy, maybe I'm way off base here.
I always understood shared hosting to mean that I'm sharing my webspace on the server with lots of other people, so it's cheaper for the web host since one server is used by many customers, but, depending how things at the web host are set up, my web space is also duplicated on some of their other servers so reliability improves.

This is my impression baed on what I see in practice - never had my site go down for more than a few minutes at a time in the three years that I hosted them, in comparison, sites that use dedicated servers have gone down for hours and a dedicated server doesn't protect one from DOS issues as we have just seen.

Sharing resources can be beneficial if done correctly - the whole Nortyh-American telephone network is based on shared resources and the Design Uptime of a Central Office is 99.999% minimum


Re your 1200 pixel calculation - something is wrong there - the actual size of each picture file is around 500K, not 3.6K as you calculated.
Seems to me you just allowed for a single pixel line of the picture and it's also 8 bits per byte, not the other way around.
Anyway, the picture of the RhB Gem 4/4 loco I posted is 537KB is 1200 pixel size and 262KB reduced to 800 pixels suitable for mls.

The text in this post used less than 4 KB - there is a huge difference in the bandwidth consumed to download one 1200 pixel picture vs the text portion of a post or a thread.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By benshell on 11 May 2011 01:27 PM 
A quick search and I found an article talking about the advantages and disadvantages of shared hosting: http://www.best-web-hosting-companies.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-shared-hosting/ .



I found that article rather shallow; this one gets into a bit more depth;
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.c...-Great-Hosting-Debate-Shared-vs-Dedicated.htm


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

Knut, that article has more depth, but it's outdated. I would not recommend dedicated hosting for most people either. VPSes and Cloud Hosting have most of the advantages of dedicated servers, but without most of the disadvantages. The term "shared hosting" gets confusing because with a VPS or Cloud server you're still sharing physical hardware, but you get your own virtual slice of the server with your own operating system. On a "shared host" you're sharing the operating system and all the software. With a VPS or Cloud server the physical computer runs a specialized operating system that divides up the computer's resources into separate slices. My VPS servers and Cloud servers are just like dedicated servers in that they have their own operating system that I have full control over and they have their own IP addresses (so I'm not going to get blacklisted because of other users on a shared host!). And the performance of other slices won't affect me, although some cloud providers allow a slice to "burst" and use extra CPU and memory when others aren't using it (so they get an advantage of shared hosting too!). 

But because my server is virtual and isn't tied to physical hardware I can do things that you can't with a dedicated server. For example, if I want to test a software upgrade I will clone my server, test the update, and then delete the new server when I'm done. I'm only charged by the hour for as long as I need it. Or, if I want to I can delete the old server and make the clone my primary. Same goes with backups; I can create a whole new server from a backup in a matter of minutes. Can't do that with dedicated, or shared. Or, if I need more memory on my server I can upgrade in minutes. If the physical computer my virtual slice is running on doesn't have enough memory for my upgrade the cloud provider will move my slice to new hardware, and I won't even know about it. Basically it takes managing hardware out of the equation.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 11 May 2011 01:58 PM 
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11 May 2011 01:11 PM 
Shared hosting puts several servers on a shared machine, right? So a DOS against one will kill the rest. That's a pretty simple and fundamental concept. Besides, hardware is cheap, only the "free" hosting companies have to resort to sharing resources. You think Bank of America, American Airlines, and the IRS use shared hosting? 

Trying to base your decision on just a few model train forums is not a large enough data sample. 

Greg 

p.s. a 1,200 pixel picture? 24 bits per pixel x 1200 pixels / 8 bytes per bit is 3,600 bytes... nothing.. maybe 3 or 4 ethernet frames... 


Oh boy, maybe I'm way off base here.
I always understood shared hosting to mean that I'm sharing my webspace on the server with lots of other people, so it's cheaper for the web host since one server is used by many customers, but, depending how things at the web host are set up, my web space is also duplicated on some of their other servers so reliability improves.

This is my impression baed on what I see in practice - never had my site go down for more than a few minutes at a time in the three years that I hosted them, in comparison, sites that use dedicated servers have gone down for hours and a dedicated server doesn't protect one from DOS issues as we have just seen.

Sharing resources can be beneficial if done correctly - the whole Nortyh-American telephone network is based on shared resources and the Design Uptime of a Central Office is 99.999% minimum


Re your 1200 pixel calculation - something is wrong there - the actual size of each picture file is around 500K, not 3.6K as you calculated.
Seems to me you just allowed for a single pixel line of the picture and it's also 8 bits per byte, not the other way around.
Anyway, the picture of the RhB Gem 4/4 loco I posted is 537KB is 1200 pixel size and 262KB reduced to 800 pixels suitable for mls.

The text in this post used less than 4 KB - there is a huge difference in the bandwidth consumed to download one 1200 pixel picture vs the text portion of a post or a thread.


Knut 


You specified 1200 pixels...is that the width or the height or is it the total count of pixels in the image? 

If that is the total count then the image is somewhere around 34 by 35 pixels square or maybe 12 by 100 or 1 by 1200... all total around 1200 pixels.

If however you mean that it is 1200 pixels wide and maybe 1200 pixels tall, then that is another story... that would be 1,440,000 pixels total and that would be multiplied by 3 to count the number of bytes to define a full color image, so 4.32 megabytes of data, which would be reduced by whatever compression you can get using a JPG algorthym.

If you dont specify both height and width, the single number will be taken as the total number of pixels.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 11 May 2011 05:11 PM 
You specified 1200 pixels...is that the width or the height or is it the total count of pixels in the image? 

If that is the total count then the image is somewhere around 34 by 35 pixels square or maybe 12 by 100 or 1 by 1200... all total around 1200 pixels.

If however you mean that it is 1200 pixels wide and maybe 1200 pixels tall, then that is another story... that would be 1,440,000 pixels total and that would be multiplied by 3 to count the number of bytes to define a full color image, so 4.32 megabytes of data, which would be reduced by whatever compression you can get using a JPG algorthym.

If you dont specify both height and width, the single number will be taken as the total number of pixels.



All right, all right......when I said a *large* 1200 pixel photrograph I thought it was obvious that this is either the width or the height, not a puny 34x35 pixel square which is much smaller than the typical avatar.
The 1200 pixel is the maximum dimension the picture is reduced to, either horizontally or vertically depending on the aspect ratio - so worst case would be 1200x1200 pixels but usually less since most pictures are not square.

As you said, jpeg compression brings the file size per picture down substantially to around 400 to 500K, still 100 times larger than the typical text file of a forum post.


Sorry Greg, I should have been clearer.

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Ben - 

Your requirements and expectations are obviously far more sophisticated than mine. 
I just want my web sites to be available 24/7, have them load quickly, not be plagued buggy software...and the less I personally have to get involved in the actual hosting aspect of it all, the better. 

How all of that is accomplished is really of little concern or interest to me at long as it works. 
Sort of the same idea when I make a phone call half way around the world - I just dial the digits and expect the correct telephone to ring; I don't worry about Central Office switching, T1 or T3 or Sonet transmission systems or CCITT signalling - as long as it works. 

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry Knut, 1200 x 1200 with 24 bits per pixel is a reasonable sized load, of course. I went back, and I missed the "large". 

Even with JPG, that's a respectable load if a lot of people hit it close to the same time. I notice the speed on this forum when there are a number of pictures on the thread. 

I only get about 13 megabits per second download at home, but that's enough to show the bottleneck is not my ISP or computer. 

You might try going to http://www.webpagetest.org/ and try various web sites, the differences in loading speed is big! My site has a much larger picture on the home page than mls, but my site loads about 3 times as fast. 


Greg


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

Knut, that makes perfect sense. No reason to get more involved than necessary.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

KRS, 

I believe you mis understood what I was telling you. I don't use the space on the ISP server, I use the I/P address to host my own domain on a Linux server sitting on my desk top. My space was unlimited, and I had total control over what went on, I ran my own mail server, etc. It was a lot of fun for about 2 years, then it got to be a lot of work when the Chinese Universities decided my I/P address looked like a good target for hacking practice. That combined with my ISP closing down port 25 (email) made me decide to go elsewhere. Plus the host now does all the major backups. As for space I had a 250 gig drive, of which only about 1 gog was for the O/S. The rest was for whatever...... 

Semper, 

A more common term for the concept of one machine and many domains is 'Virtual Domains'. That was the system I used on my Linux box to host more than one website. All the domains point to the same I/P address on the domain servers, the local machine sorts out what pages are loaded. 

Bob C.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

The British forum you mentioned would be *G Scale Central*. The others, *Large Scale Central;** LGB e Scala G*, the Italian forum; *Large Scale Trolley *and* The 7/8s Forum,* all add to the enjoyment of our hobby, without the cost of magazine subscriptions. And thankfully, they are all free.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11 May 2011 06:14 PM 

You might try going to http://www.webpagetest.org/ and try various web sites, the differences in loading speed is big! My site has a much larger picture on the home page than mls, but my site loads about 3 times as fast. 


Interesting test site - thanks for the link.

I tried the main page of the Large Scale database which has four 200 pixel wide thumbnails on it and some graphics.
Load time first time around measured 2.7 seconds with that test site.
I wasn't sure if that was good, bad or indifferent - seemed so, so to me, could be faster but wasn't too bad.

I then tried the mls main page - ouch.
Load time first time around was clocked at just over 30.5 seconds - that seems rather slow to me.
In comparison the database site is blazingly fast










Knut


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

It's interesting you mention loading time. This is the only site that takes a long time to load. I would say up to 30 seconds. Compared to all of the others that come up instantly.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

If you try that link, you can see the detail that explains why certain sites are slow. 

It's interesting, but it's also explained in the details. 

Greg


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By ShadsTrains on 09 May 2011 11:10 PM 


The short answer to how much does it cost is none of your damn business. 


*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*





Shad, you are nicer then me. When you consider that it only costs 2 bucks a month to be a member around here, I would have added to what you said, " And, to all that are griping about everything else..........why don't you just leave[/b]" ?????? We live in a society now where everything is expected for free.[/b]


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

The short answer is that we pay to subscibe to this site. Don't you think that we have the right to ask a question, and get a civil answer?


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

You know all these free digital photograph storage sites that everyone seems to be so happy with, and do you remember all that boring legalese in the "Terms of Service" that you really didn't bother to read.







Well maybe everyone should review the old adage "There is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH."









Photo-Sharing Sites Can Sell Your Images If They Want[/b]


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

"There is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH." 

Actually, if you don't cover your mouth when you yawn AND there are numerous flying insects around, you could just get the kind of FREE LUNCH that you never wanted! 

Sorry, couldn't resist, 
David Meashey


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Hehehe... point taken Dave.









However, with today's seemingly endless plethora of human hyper-sensitivity to just about everything, not only could that unintended "Free Lunch" wind up being very expensive, but it might just be fatal.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 12 May 2011 01:52 PM 
You know all these free digital photograph storage sites that everyone seems to be so happy with, and do you remember all that boring legalese in the "Terms of Service" that you really didn't bother to read.







Well maybe everyone should review the old adage "There is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH."









Photo-Sharing Sites Can Sell Your Images If They Want[/b]



Part of the reason we store all images, downloadable pdfs etc on the Large Scale database on web space we pay for and don't link to any external sites except for the free banners that are displayed.
Unfortunately it also occasionally prevents us from providing relevant information to the Large Scale community because the odd private individual who may have good relevant information on their web site will not provide permission to convert the information into a pdf for storage and download on the database.

Fortunately those are the rare exception, all Large Scale and DCC manufacturers as well as many individuals we have approached so far have been very happy to let us post their information and documentation for the benefit of the Large Scale community.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Back to the original question............ 

I have now received a reply from the other two Large Scale forums where I requested this general information about what is involved and the cost to run a forum like this. 
Numbers came in at between $50 and $100 per month for a dedicated server and enough bandwidth to handle the typical traffic - sort of along the lines I expected. 
Couldn't have been that expensive since four new Large Scale web sites including mls sort of popped out of the woodwork when Large-Scale-On-Line closed its doors from one day to the next years ago. Of those I think only Large Scale central is still active but not to the same degree as mls. 

Knut


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 12 May 2011 02:39 PM 
Back to the original question............ 

I have now received a reply from the other two Large Scale forums where I requested this general information about what is involved and the cost to run a forum like this. 
Numbers came in at between $50 and $100 per month for a dedicated server and enough bandwidth to handle the typical traffic - sort of along the lines I expected. 
Couldn't have been that expensive since four new Large Scale web sites including mls sort of popped out of the woodwork when Large-Scale-On-Line closed its doors from one day to the next years ago. Of those I think only Large Scale central is still active but not to the same degree as mls. 

Knut 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, now that you think that you have found your answer, what was your point in the first place ??


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

It ain't what you say, but how you say it.......


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Why can't I reply to this topic?


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

OK, I'll try for the third time using the Quick reply. 
I saw an ad on TV today, where there is a company that can block or eliminate your personal information on the internet. The thought came to me that one day, the internet will be the exclusive tool of those in power that want to control everyone else.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Madman on 12 May 2011 07:28 PM 
Why can't I reply to this topic? 


------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]


It's called computer stuff happens..............................Try and get over[/b] it.[/b]


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 12 May 2011 05:24 PM 


OK, now that you think that you have found your answer, what was your point in the first place ??


I wasn't trying to make a point - I was just trying to get some factual information partially triggered by all these forums people are starting all over the place which in my mind contradicts the impression I get from some people that running a forum like this is hugely expensive.
Basically a reality check, that's all - I didn't expect Shad to go off the deep end.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 12 May 2011 08:36 PM 


It's called computer stuff happens..............................Try and get over[/b] it.[/b]




Wow!

I see you're on the war path!
This site has more than it's share of problems - both with the forum software and the hosting.

I think members in general are very tolerant when it comes to all these problems.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 12 May 2011 08:37 PM 
Posted By Steve S. on 12 May 2011 05:24 PM 


OK, now that you think that you have found your answer, what was your point in the first place ??


I wasn't trying to make a point - I was just trying to get some factual information partially triggered by all these forums people are starting all over the place which in my mind contradicts the impression I get from some people that running a forum like this is hugely expensive.
Basically a reality check, that's all - I didn't expect Shad to go off the deep end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please post some references to where Shad or anyone else that runs this site has complained about how expensive it is to run. If you think that there is so much profit to be made you could always start your own site. I think that if you did you might realize the effort and time spent that is involved. I'm a capitalist and I hope Shad makes a ton of money from this site *(I know that he dose not)* and for that matter I hope that you make lots of money in what ever you do.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 12 May 2011 08:36 PM 


Posted By Madman on 12 May 2011 07:28 PM 
Why can't I reply to this topic? 


------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]


It's called computer stuff happens..............................Try and get over[/b] it.[/b] 








Why are you picking on me. I didn't start this topic. I joined in the discussion because I am a paying subscriber. I am extremely tolerant of most things in life. Once in awhile my tolerance level reaches it's peak earlier than usual. Last night it reached one of those peaks. After I had typed the same reply four times, without results, I just felt like venting. Get over it.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Madman on 13 May 2011 06:48 PM 
Posted By Steve S. on 12 May 2011 08:36 PM 


Posted By Madman on 12 May 2011 07:28 PM 
Why can't I reply to this topic? 


------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]


It's called computer stuff happens..............................Try and get over[/b] it.[/b] 








Why are you picking on me. I didn't start this topic. I joined in the discussion because I am a paying subscriber. I am extremely tolerant of most things in life. Once in awhile my tolerance level reaches it's peak earlier than usual. Last night it reached one of those peaks. After I had typed the same reply four times, without results, I just felt like venting. Get over it.





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thats one of the problems with talking on computers and not face to face. Considering the negative spirit towards MLS in this thread...............I took you wrong. I thought that you were taking a unnecessary shot at this web site. Now I see that I was wrong and *I apologize*. Again I say, *" I'm sorry".*


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Now there ya go. 

A communal love in. 
Those posts and replies are so, well, enmeshed, it is a bit hard to work out exactly who is apologising to who there.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 14 May 2011 01:21 AM 
Now there ya go. 

A communal love in. 
Those posts and replies are so, well, enmeshed, it is a bit hard to work out exactly who is apologising to who there. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 


I wont even respond to your "Communal love in" crapola.  As far as enmeshed..................I hope you can figure this one out.  You see, like the first, you are in black type and my answer is in blue.  Is that to tough for you ?? But believe me, I know that your true motive is just that you are being a smart A$$.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 14 May 2011 06:31 AM 


Posted By TonyWalsham on 14 May 2011 01:21 AM 
Now there ya go. 

A communal love in. 
Those posts and replies are so, well, enmeshed, it is a bit hard to work out exactly who is apologising to who there. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I wont even respond to your "Communal love in" crapola. As far as enmeshed..................I hope you can figure this one out. You see, like the first, you are in black type and my answer is in blue. Is that to tough for you ?? But believe me, I know that your true motive is just that you are being a smart A$$.





Is that because you don't know how to separate the quotes? Like this.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 14 May 2011 07:09 AM 
Posted By Steve S. on 14 May 2011 06:31 AM 


Posted By TonyWalsham on 14 May 2011 01:21 AM 
Now there ya go. 

A communal love in. 
Those posts and replies are so, well, enmeshed, it is a bit hard to work out exactly who is apologising to who there. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I wont even respond to your "Communal love in" crapola. As far as enmeshed..................I hope you can figure this one out. You see, like the first, you are in black type and my answer is in blue. Is that to tough for you ?? But believe me, I know that your true motive is just that you are being a smart A$$.





Is that because you don't know how to separate the quotes? Like this.









-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow..............................You figured it out. And, I'm proud to say that I do not do computers all that well. You see, instead of spending most of my time on a computer whining like many around here I spend most of my time working to support all those who do not work with my taxes that are distributed unfairly.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow..............................You figured it out. And, I'm proud to say that I do not do computers all that well. You see, instead of spending most of my time on a computer whining like many around here I spend most of my time working to support all those who do not work with my taxes that are distributed unfairly.





Ignorance is pardonable. Pride in ignorance is odd. 

I also find this forum software frustrating and sometimes hard to figure out For example, it often inserts a line of css code which I can't edit out, even if I post in HTML mode.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Lownote, if you are using Google Chrome, this is hashed out in another thread.. 

Greg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Knock off the interpersonal BS gentlemen. Though mild so far, the personal attacks are starting and it can only go downhill if allowed to continue.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 13 May 2011 11:38 PM 
Considering the negative spirit towards MLS in this thread...............I took you wrong. I thought that you were taking a unnecessary shot at this web site.




I'm surprised to see this thread drag on and on - the subject matter of this thread was covered a while back.

But let's just make one thing perfectly clear - the complaints about the mls web site in general and the forum software in particular are all valid, not "unnecassary shots" as you put it.

In fact, there are many more issues than what people actually post and complain about - the complaints only happen when people are totally frustrated again because the obvious doesn't work.

Even this simple reply with part of your comment as a quote requires me to fiddle so that it eventually looks right.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There's definitely room for improvement, but this really is a subject to engage Shad, and ask what can be done? Are the limitations time, money, etc? 

I believe it is reasonable to ask these questions POLITELY. Yes, if you look at the number of 1st class members and calculate the money taken in each year and the advertising it seems like a lot, but we have no real clue as to the costs. 

We do have a good calibration, if this was a huge money maker, Shad would not have a regular full time job. So, I think it's pretty clear this site is not a financial gold mine. I keep this in mind when I start to shift from asking why to complaining... 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I don't really understand why MLS doesn't run on open-source forum/bulletin board software like most of the others. 
That would eliminate the forum software issues which are the vast majority of the complaints and it would save a good chunck of change as well. 

Knut


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 13 May 2011 11:38 PM 
Posted By Madman on 13 May 2011 06:48 PM 
Posted By Steve S. on 12 May 2011 08:36 PM 


Posted By Madman on 12 May 2011 07:28 PM 
Why can't I reply to this topic? 


------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]


It's called computer stuff happens..............................Try and get over[/b] it.[/b] 








Why are you picking on me. I didn't start this topic. I joined in the discussion because I am a paying subscriber. I am extremely tolerant of most things in life. Once in awhile my tolerance level reaches it's peak earlier than usual. Last night it reached one of those peaks. After I had typed the same reply four times, without results, I just felt like venting. Get over it.





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thats one of the problems with talking on computers and not face to face. Considering the negative spirit towards MLS in this thread...............I took you wrong. I thought that you were taking a unnecessary shot at this web site. Now I see that I was wrong and *I apologize*. Again I say, *" I'm sorry".*











*Apology accepted. It is difficult, at times, to get the inferences in what the other person is trying to say on a computer. *


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By krs on 14 May 2011 08:52 AM 
Posted By Steve S. on 13 May 2011 11:38 PM 
Considering the negative spirit towards MLS in this thread...............I took you wrong. I thought that you were taking a unnecessary shot at this web site.




I'm surprised to see this thread drag on and on [/b]- the subject matter of this thread was covered a while back.

But let's just make one thing perfectly clear - the complaints about the mls web site in general and the forum software in particular are all valid, not "unnecassary shots" as you put it.

In fact, there are many more issues than what people actually post and complain about - the complaints only happen when people are totally frustrated again because the obvious doesn't work.

Even this simple reply with part of your comment as a quote requires me to fiddle so that it eventually looks right. 









If I hadn't taken an interest, early, in this thread's topic, I would never had jumped in having seen the number of pages.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 14 May 2011 07:47 AM


Ignorance is pardonable. Pride in ignorance is odd.





------------------------------------------------------------------


*Wow Lownote, how thought provoking.* What is even *odder* is how people around here try to figure out how much money Shad is making from this web site. To the point of figuring how many first class members there are times the measly 2 bucks per month they pay. And now................ A thought provoking quote from me:


Jealousy is *"odd". *Jealousy over two bucks a month is *PATHETIC* !!


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 15 May 2011 06:53 AM 
What is even *odder* is how people around here try to figure out how much money Shad is making from this web site. To the point of figuring how many first class members there are times the measly 2 bucks per month they pay.





----------

Don't you read what has already been posted before you reply?
And maybe think about what you're posting?

To start with, the question was "How expensive is it to run a forum like this?" - same question I asked a couple of other webmasters who run similar forums. Nothing specific to MLS and certainly not how much money Shad is making (or paying for that matter) related to mls.

That wasn't the purpose of the question at all as I explained later when some one asked.
And even if Shad had come back and given me a dollar and cents number (which I wasn't looking for, just an order of magnitude) I still wouldn't have a clue as to how much money Shad is making - think about it - there is other income besides the first class membership fee and there are also other expenses besides the pure cost for the dedicated servers.


But just from the pure hosting point of view, I was interested in getting a reference point to compare this hosting via dedicated servers to hosting via shared servers and that thought in turn was triggered by the last outage which lasted about 12 hours - an outage that long I have never seen with the shared hosting I use and I doubt that any web host would have their shared services off line for any length of time even remotely close to that.

If they did, I would use their services in the first place or if I wasn't smart enough to figure that out before hand, I would move to a different host pronto.
But with dedicated hosting, I guess the management of the server and connection to the net is left to the webmaster and team.

Can we now please close this thread, I have the answers I was looking for. On the other forums this was a three post thread, here we are on page four!!!


PS: Seems the way I used to set up a quote of a previous post doesn't always work.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 15 May 2011 07:56 AM 
Don't you read what has already been posted before you reply?
And maybe think about what you're posting?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe this is something you and others around here should *"Think", *about.  This is a independently run web site, not a Democracy.  Because of that the Owner of said web site can do as he or she pleases.  You don't get a vote.  Now you can complain about problems.  The proper way would be by personal messages to Shad.  But, what I see is a bunch of *whining* on the open forums when I know good and well that Shad dose the best he can.  Then, the *whining* becomes a *jealousy* thing about how much money a web site like this makes.  It's kind of like the political *"Class envy card that is always delt in politics". *I doubt that Shad will make enough off this site to send his kids through college.  But the difference between me and most (Not all) around here is:


*I hope he does make that kind of money off this site (Shad, I know that you do not) and, a thanks to you and all the moderators that have to put up with so much crapola around here.*


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

I normally do not respond to these types of discussions because my input is usually not relevant but I will add a comment to this discussion:

I think Steve S ( a moderator of this site) is way off track and is causing most of the hostility by his brupt and antagonistic replys. 

I have not gotten the feeling that anyone responding to this thread is JEALOUS of Shad or actually is interested in knowing how much he makes.

I thought the initial question was reasonable and appropriate. 

I have to say I was offended by Shad's brutal reply to the question. 

These types of replys only add fuel to the fire. Of course, I am probably perpetuating it by even posting my comment here.

John


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I click on the MLS Icon. I go to the kitchen pour me a cup of coffee come back and MLS is open and waiting for me.

I check the posts. Add where I can. View your pictures and marvel at what guys have accompolished.

In enening I go to chat and talk with the regulars and the new guys.

I have thousands of friends all over the planet.

30 seconds of load time is nothing.

I am just glad to be here with you guys.

Shad does his best with what he has plus earn a living at a regular job. 

Even with it's faults MLS is still better than the rest.

JJ


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jbwilcox on 15 May 2011 02:21 PM 
I normally do not respond to these types of discussions because my input is usually not relevant but I will add a comment to this discussion:
 
I think Steve S ( a moderator of this site) is way off track and is causing most of the hostility by his brupt and antagonistic replys. 
 
I have not gotten the feeling that anyone responding to this thread is JEALOUS of Shad or actually is interested in knowing how much he makes.
 
I thought the initial question was reasonable and appropriate.  
 
I have to say I was offended by Shad's brutal reply to the question.  
 
These types of replys only add fuel to the fire.  Of course, I am probably perpetuating it by even posting my comment here.
 
John
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I assure you that I am not a moderator and have nothing to do with this web site other then to realize what a great deal I am getting for two bucks a month as a first class member.  Your reply is exactly what I am talking about. Very typical.  You disagree with me so you accuse me of being a MLS moderator or some type of secret plant by MLS to say good things about them.  The truth is, I have meant everything that I have said. Now it has been ok for some in this thread to call me odd and say that I can not think. No problem, I have very thick skin and see it for the hypocrisy that it is. But................when I answer, feelings get hurt. I actually think that it is so ridiculous that it is funny.


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

You know what they say when you ASSUME something.

I have always been under the assumption that you were a moderator of this site.

Sorry, I apologize for the mistake.

I still think your comments have turned this thread into something which it was not when it started.

John


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jbwilcox on 15 May 2011 05:24 PM 
You know what they say when you ASSUME something.

I have always been under the assumption that you were a moderator of this site.

Sorry, I apologize for the mistake.

I still think your comments have turned this thread into something which it was not when it started.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No problem there John. I think there may be another Steve that is a moderator but not sure. As far as the rest...............we can agree to disagree.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 15 May 2011 08:36 AM 


Maybe this is something you and others around here should *"Think", *about. This is a independently run web site, not a Democracy. Because of that the Owner of said web site can do as he or she pleases. You don't get a vote. Now you can complain about problems. The proper way would be by personal messages to Shad. But, what I see is a bunch of *whining* on the open forums when I know good and well that Shad dose the best he can. Then, the *whining* becomes a *jealousy* thing about how much money a web site like this makes. It's kind of like the political *"Class envy card that is always delt in politics". *I doubt that Shad will make enough off this site to send his kids through college. But the difference between me and most (Not all) around here is:









I see that you still don't read.....or understand....


The proper way would be by personal messages to Shad.Do you really think Shad wants to receive dozends of emails reporting the same problem?

Why do you think he specifically created a "public" section in this forum to report bugs?


And you brought up the "jealousy" thing if I remember right, nobody else. 
On top of that, nobody is suggesting that Shad makes any money off this site, much less lots of money as you suggest.
You are pulling things out of the air left, right and centreand it gets worse with every post.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

This is a Really Dumb Thread,


----------



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

Enough...


----------

