Dormant CAF Galleries 0

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

There is ..... It's called subscribing to the annual premium membership and paying for it via PayPal.  $75 per year.  If anyone has not yet joined, please consider doing so.

Bill Cox should really have EVERY CAF user pay a minimum amount even if it's $10 per year.  This will help out with costs of storage space that the pics require.  He can still have premium membership with different benefits.  My 2¢.

 

I am a premium member. That doesn’t solve it. But more people should be.

[vodou]

4 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

Bill Cox should really have EVERY CAF user pay a minimum amount even if it's $10 per year.

Bill knows a substantial count will walk instead of pay; he's right and I don't think he wants that.

[AnkurJ]

47 minutes ago, vodou said:

Bill knows a substantial count will walk instead of pay; he's right and I don't think he wants that.

That’s unfortunate. It’s amazing how as collectors we spend thousands on art but cheap out on other things like framing and online subscriptions  

[Rick2you2]

6 hours ago, eewwnuk said:

Isnt the 'most recent additions' banner with the date of last posting enough 

No, but why all the objections to such a simple thing?

[malvin]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

No, but why all the objections to such a simple thing?

It's simple for you.  Not for others.  Bill/CAF has to:

1. Program the -script/functionality that you want.  And if you say it's minor, its not your time or money, he could be programming other functionality the more people will find useful.  Or spend his time relaxing or whatever he does with his idle time.

2. EVERY SINGLE CAF MEMBER has to read and click yes this email that only a small minority is interested in.

3. Bill/CAF has to deal with questions, blowback, change management and just other issue related to doing this.

And in return, the small minority won't see galleries that are dormant.  That they are free to ignore or mentally mark as dormant to begin with.

I'm not seeing the cost/benefit of doing this.

Malvin

[NelsonAI]

CAF has already lost hundreds of people to FB, instagram, twitter., etc.

My suggestion:

@ $10 annual basic membership fee, gives them ability to contact other members.  Right now this is free.  Big mistake.  CAF is a huge marketplace to network, buy and sell.  It's worth paying $10 annually to be able to contact other members in order to make a deal.

Of course, CAF still has to do a better job of reviewing and editing what people type in effort to circumvent the fee like publicly disclosing their emails to save the measly $10.

@$75 premium membership, improve chat board feature like here on CGC.  Only premium members can access chat boards.  More chat would equate to more active accounts.

[vodou]

6 minutes ago, NelsonAI said:

CAF has already lost hundreds of people to FB, instagram, twitter., etc.

My suggestion:

@ $10 annual basic membership fee, gives them ability to contact other members.  Right now this is free.  Big mistake.  CAF is a huge marketplace to network, buy and sell.  It's worth paying $10 annually to be able to contact other members in order to make a deal.

Of course, CAF still has to do a better job of reviewing and editing what people type in effort to circumvent the fee like publicly disclosing their emails to save the measly $10.

@$75 premium membership, improve chat board feature like here on CGC.  Only premium members can access chat boards.  More chat would equate to more active accounts.

So much of that sound exactly like what turned people here hard against...eBay

[Rick2you2]

20 minutes ago, malvin said:

It's simple for you.  Not for others.  Bill/CAF has to:

1. Program the --script/functionality that you want.  And if you say it's minor, its not your time or money, he could be programming other functionality the more people will find useful.  Or spend his time relaxing or whatever he does with his idle time.

2. EVERY SINGLE CAF MEMBER has to read and click yes this email that only a small minority is interested in.

3. Bill/CAF has to deal with questions, blowback, change management and just other issue related to doing this.

And in return, the small minority won't see galleries that are dormant.  That they are free to ignore or mentally mark as dormant to begin with.

I'm not seeing the cost/benefit of doing this.

Malvin

It’s Bill’s business whether it is worth doing or not.
As to the other items of claimed blowback, what is so horrible about auto sending an email to an owner simply asking whether his page should still be considered active if there is no recorded activity on it for years? If he gets no reply in, say, 2 months, it is auto marked as inactive. If he gets a Reply later from the page owner, it goes active again. 
Why do you find the process so objectionable? You don’t have the burden of doing it, and if it is a real burden, then he shouldn’t. But I suspect that a lot more people would find this helpful than you think, but they have no place to post their opinion. I see galleries I haven’t looked at before, and it would be nice to know if they are dead in the water.

[Yorick]

I still collect, but I hate taking pictures (and I can't light it correctly).  I'm trying to get better with white-balancing.  Also, if I've bought new art, I want the artist to have time to use the image in publications/sketchbooks/whatever for a little income rather than me blasting it over the internet for free.

[Twanj]

1 hour ago, NelsonAI said:

CAF has already lost hundreds of people to FB, instagram, twitter., etc.

My suggestion:

@ $10 annual basic membership fee, gives them ability to contact other members.  Right now this is free.  Big mistake.  CAF is a huge marketplace to network, buy and sell.  It's worth paying $10 annually to be able to contact other members in order to make a deal.

Of course, CAF still has to do a better job of reviewing and editing what people type in effort to circumvent the fee like publicly disclosing their emails to save the measly $10.

@$75 premium membership, improve chat board feature like here on CGC.  Only premium members can access chat boards.  More chat would equate to more active accounts.

No offense to whoever started this, thread but it's a solution in search of an actual problem.

As someone who's designed a lot of software (not websites), and doesn't purchase apps/memberships, something like the above seems to make a lot more sense.

$75 would be the most/only site membership for me. Maybe at $25/year, they'd get 4x the people to sign up? Or make it $3/month?

Also, the site is pretty clunky (even comicconnect is updating!) and has ads. Most modern sites would charge more for advertising and less to users.

[exitmusicblue]

Gonna be half-dormant myself, next few weeks... Mazatlan now, 4 East Asian countries comin' up.

[cloud cloddie]

I don’t care about the dormant galleries. But I do care about pieces being up that have long been sold. If anything, I’d like something akin to the CGC registry, where you can claim a piece, and if the previous owner doesn’t dispute, it gets removed from their page. 

[Brian Peck]

33 minutes ago, cloud cloddie said:

I don’t care about the dormant galleries. But I do care about pieces being up that have long been sold. If anything, I’d like something akin to the CGC registry, where you can claim a piece, and if the previous owner doesn’t dispute, it gets removed from their page. 

I have no issue with that just don't see how it can be done. People title their art many different ways. Best way is to just message the owner to take it down. I try and remove pieces that I have sold but I do discover sometimes I forget.

[malvin]

36 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

I have no issue with that just don't see how it can be done. People title their art many different ways. Best way is to just message the owner to take it down. I try and remove pieces that I have sold but I do discover sometimes I forget.

Heh, I messaged both previous owners of the Platt Batman Joker I uploaded to CAF and they both ignored me.

And no, they are not dormant.

Malvin

[Brian Peck]

54 minutes ago, malvin said:

Heh, I messaged both previous owners of the Platt Batman Joker I uploaded to CAF and they both ignored me.

And no, they are not dormant.

Malvin

I would then email bill about removing them.

[GreatEscape]

Speaking of dormant galleries, Ken Z owned CAF's most popular piece ever with 98k views: the "Very Sexy Red Sonja" pin-up by Alex Miranda.  After Ken's passing, I'm not sure what will happen to his gallery.  As the new owner, I wanted to honor Ken and the incredible Red Sonja pin-up that connected him to so many friends and fellow collectors on CAF. 

Red Sonja

 

 

[vodou]

7 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

I would then email bill about removing them.

or send the bill snail mail

[Timely]

I was looking at a CAF room this morning that had lots of great art right up my alley. I noticed even higher end pieces had very few comments left, so I left about 5-6. I then noticed that the last piece he uploaded was way back in 2008. Makes me wonder what happened to the guy in the last 12 years!?!

[MyNameIsLegion]

23 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

CAF has already lost hundreds of people to FB, instagram, twitter., etc.

My suggestion:

@ $10 annual basic membership fee, gives them ability to contact other members.  Right now this is free.  Big mistake.  CAF is a huge marketplace to network, buy and sell.  It's worth paying $10 annually to be able to contact other members in order to make a deal.

Of course, CAF still has to do a better job of reviewing and editing what people type in effort to circumvent the fee like publicly disclosing their emails to save the measly $10.

@$75 premium membership, improve chat board feature like here on CGC.  Only premium members can access chat boards.  More chat would equate to more active accounts.

I think there may be something to the idea of charging some nominal annual fee that permits any CAF account to contact other CAF members.  the OP's dislike of "dormant" accounts isn't the real issue. I don't see it as an issue at all, because if the art is still there, we can see it.  What annoys be is all the accounts that fall into 2 categories:

1.  "appear inactive because they only have a couple things posted because they pulled most of there stuff down so as not to "show their cards" or make their art appear "fresh to market" but they are actively contacting other members to buy art

2. CAF accounts with no active gallery at all, but they use their CAF account solely for the purpose of making unsolicited inquires of other active CAF members.  How many of those accounts do you think there are?  TONS.  Those are the ones that contact me and I click on their profile to find they have no CAF gallery at all and I just ignore them.  Their fishing.  My default assumption is they are a scam or out to screw someone over. 

3. Related to the 2 above: Prominent "collectors" (air quotes, they are really dealers)  in the hobby that are not premium members at all despite their oversized presence in the hobby online, and at conventions and auctions.  I've publicly shamed more than a few over the years for not supporting the best resource in the hobby that they have personally used to profit from without any thought to supporting CAF.  Pay up you cheap bung-holes.

[vodou]

How about every message initiated remove two random comments. If no pieces/no comments then no can sendee messages?