[Free]

bluecalm, on 2011-April-06, 13:19, said:

Btw, I find it sad that Eric Rodwell writes articles about support doubles at very basic level. I could do that just as well and probably many forum posters could too. As one of the best in the history of the game ER has certainly a lot to say about playing at the highest level, designing high level systems/treatments/conventions or even telling stories about what high level bridge is and what is important there. That would be unique and worth a lot of dollars to many bridge fans (like me, for example).

He won't do this until he's retired.

I guess it's because that might damage his own results. For example, he doesn't want to talk about his take on the best defense against strong ♣. Granted, it's a valid argument if you ask me, but it's a pitty for us mortals ofcourse.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on 2011-April-06, 13:45, said:

Not so BridgeTopics they have continued to act as if they don't give a damn that they spam email addresses an action which is quite possibly illegal (it certainly is where I live and I imagine is in many other places).

Is it illegal where you live? As I understand it your email address is publically available. I'm not an expert on New Zealand data-protection law, but a quick glance at The Privacy Act 1993 suggests that this would make it legal both to collect it and to use it.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-April-07, 02:09, said:

Is it illegal where you live? As I understand it your email address is publically available. I'm not an expert on New Zealand data-protection law, but a quick glance at The Privacy Act 1993 suggests that this would make it legal both to collect it and to use it.

I am pretty sure I am protected by Unsolicted Electronic Messages Act 2007 although I have to confess I have not read the details only summaries of the legislation.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on 2011-April-07, 03:26, said:

I am pretty sure I am protected by Unsolicted Electronic Messages Act 2007 although I have to confess I have not read the details only summaries of the legislation.

Sorry, I'd assumed this was the responsibility of the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner, whose website mentions only the Privacy Act. Anyway, now that I'm looking at the right piece of legislation, this may interest you:

Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act said:

(4)1(a)(iii)
consent ... is deemed to have been given when the following circumstances apply:
(A) an electronic address has been conspicuously published by a person in a business or official capacity; and
(B) the publication of the address is not accompanied by a statement to the effect that the relevant electronic address-holder does not want to receive unsolicited electronic messages at that electronic address; and
(C ) the message sent to that address is relevant to the business, role, functions, or duties of the person in a business or official capacity

[gnasher]

I too was disappointed by the free Rodwell article, but on reflection I shouldn't have been surprised.

I think that it's generally very hard to get top players to write articles or books that are aimed at a fairly high level, partly because the market is so much smaller, and partly because it requires a lot more effort. If we were all prepared to compensate for that by paying a lot more for the material, that might change, but we're not.

There are some people who do write for good players - Woolsey and Rubens for example - but I think they're going to go on being the exception.

[IMP_Jan]

Dear All,

Looking at the discussion which is developping here, as founding publisher of BridgeTopics.com I feel I should give a little explanation. We started mid September 2010 with BTC. The biz model is typical internetish. We give away lots of free info: i.e. daily bridge news from all over the world. We built a network of international correspondents and are happy to notice that this is widely appreciated. Without being too modest we already are considered as the CNN of the bridge world. We also facilitate The Grand Tour: a network of international bridge festivals and tournaments. Members are event organizers who have their own page with us for free. Our paid content is the Topics Collection of which Eric Rodwell (our anchor man) is the editor. We publish each month a Topic on modern bridge theory. This month f.i. we published Gazzilli à la Lauria. Based on a 12 month subscription of USD 79.0 and due to our partnership program the price of a single Topic is as low as USD. 3.33. We feel that that is a bargain for an in depth and extensive article of top quality. So far our mission and pricing. As to our marketing I admit that in the first month (september/october) we made some technical mistakes. That had merely to do with the fact that we erroneously mixed up a pressrelease and a news letter. From that moment on we were very keen sending our newsletter only to our registered members. Therefore I have the feeling that some critical remarks in this Forum - by the way always appreciated as we learn from it - might still be based on that very first month. And once more be assured we work very hard to communicate in a respectful way to the bridge world. Last words: if you still feel the need to exchange views with me on these things please mail me: jvcleeff@xs4all.nl or call me: +31 70 3605902 .

Thanks,

Jan van Cleeff

[the hog]

IMP_Jan, I wouldn't boast that "we already are considered as the CNN of the bridge world."
Personally I would regard that as an insult.

[bluecalm]

One more thing:

Allow people to buy separate topics. I am not willing to buy bunch of articles on topics which aren't aimed for me nor are about topics which interest me but still I could buy a few of chosen ones. It will be also good for you as you will have better picture of what kind of stuff is interesting for people as some topics will be bought more often than others.

[the hog]

IMP_Jan, on 2011-April-07, 12:05, said:

We publish each month a Topic on modern bridge theory. This month f.i. we published Gazzilli à la Lauria. Based on a 12 month subscription of USD 79.0 and due to our partnership program the price of a single Topic is as low as USD. 3.33. We feel that that is a bargain for an in depth and extensive article of top quality. S

bluecalm, on 2011-April-08, 00:30, said:

One more thing:

Allow people to buy separate topics. I am not willing to buy bunch of articles on topics which aren't aimed for me nor are about topics which interest me but still I could buy a few of chosen ones. It will be also good for you as you will have better picture of what kind of stuff is interesting for people as some topics will be bought more often than others.

Agree with Calm. How do I know this article is top quality? how many pages is it? 20, 30? If it is only a couple it is not worth it.

[kenberg]

Free, on 2011-April-07, 01:27, said:

He won't do this until he's retired.

I guess it's because that might damage his own results. For example, he doesn't want to talk about his take on the best defense against strong ♣. Granted, it's a valid argument if you ask me, but it's a pity for us mortals of course.

Is this really an accurate reflection of his views? If so, that does it for me. Of course he is under no obligation to provide us with his hard earned bridge knowledge but if I give money for the views of a great man I expect to get his views. Anything less is a deal for suckers.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-April-07, 06:56, said:

Sorry, I'd assumed this was the responsibility of the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner, whose website mentions only the Privacy Act. Anyway, now that I'm looking at the right piece of legislation, this may interest you:

Interesting. Maybe they would get away with being relevant. Although I think there is some argument.

Consider for example how Jan van Cleeff might welcome unsolicited emails from me offering him bridge lessons. This would be similarly relevant to his business but I can't imagine he would be too impressed.

I have bigger problems with their lack of prompt response and in many cases no response at all to emails that I have sent to them. Given Jan van Cleeff has now responded here I will follow it up directly with him.

[Free]

kenberg, on 2011-April-08, 07:52, said:

Is this really an accurate reflection of his views? If so, that does it for me. Of course he is under no obligation to provide us with his hard earned bridge knowledge but if I give money for the views of a great man I expect to get his views. Anything less is a deal for suckers.

I must admit that I'm not sure if it's Rodwell or Meckstroth who said that. But it sure was one of them in an interview.

[Vampyr]

IMP_Jan, on 2011-April-07, 12:05, said:

We publish each month a Topic on modern bridge theory. This month f.i. we published Gazzilli à la Lauria. Based on a 12 month subscription of USD 79.0 and due to our partnership program the price of a single Topic is as low as USD. 3.33.

3.33x12 is 39. What am I missing here?

[lowerline]

Vampyr, on 2011-April-14, 19:43, said:

3.33x12 is 39. What am I missing here?

For one subscription you get two accounts. So the math is 3.33x12x2.

To conclude: none of the posters here is a paying member of BridgeTopics. So nobody can really tell whether the topics are worth their money or not...

Steven

[nige1]

lowerline, on 2011-April-19, 02:49, said:

For one subscription you get two accounts. So the math is 3.33x12x2. To conclude: none of the posters here is a paying member of BridgeTopics. So nobody can really tell whether the topics are worth their money or not...Steven

Presumably the free samples are typical, although they seem to require you to sign up to a news-letter. IMO, Membership lists (and Non-membership lists) should be private.

[billw55]

Gosh guys.

Sure, nobody likes email spam. But it is so ubiquitous, and so simply dealt with, that I find it not worth getting my hackles up. You probably spent 50 times as long to type up all your grumbling as it took to click "delete" or "spam".

Besides, if there is another worthwhile bridge service out there, then so much the better. And if my inbox spam increases from 20 per week to 21 - I think I can live with that.

[nige1]

billw55, on 2011-April-19, 11:44, said:

Gosh guys. Sure, nobody likes email spam. But it is so ubiquitous, and so simply dealt with, that I find it not worth getting my hackles up. You probably spent 50 times as long to type up all your grumbling as it took to click "delete" or "spam".Besides, if there is another worthwhile bridge service out there, then so much the better. And if my inbox spam increases from 20 per week to 21 - I think I can live with that.

Even innocent-seeming spam is the thin end of a wedge. Spam is a minor annoyance to billw55 but a major irritant to some like me. I have poor sight and wading through spam is a nuisance. I've almost stopped reading rec.games bridge because of spam..But I think we should all be concerned for obvious reasons. Spam dominates internet traffic and costs us all money and time. It is responsible for scams, viruses, phishing and botnets. It hurts the old and vulnerable.

[mgoetze]

gnasher, on 2011-January-22, 12:24, said:

I get a list of email addresses from somewhere, and I send them all an email.

[...]

I get another list of email addresses from somewhere else.

[...]

Later I get a third list of addresses. [...]

In other words, you are a spammer. Being a good spammer and only sending each person whose email you harvested one of each email doesn't make you less of a spammer at all.