Constant Content

Why was the topic about adding a counter to each article deleted from the forums? I had bookmarked it, and now when it comes up, I get a 404 error.

I removed it.

I'm a coder this is what I do, this is how Constant Content was built. I understand the whole process and understand what is possible and not possible for different situations. This particular situation it was not possible, rather then argue that I removed the post. I guess I didn't see any reason to leave something like that up, but looking back I probably should have left it.

That's such a shame. (I wasn't even trying to argue; I was simply pointing out where you went wrong.) I didn't think Constant Content had become a place of censor.

That makes me seriously reconsider whether or not this place is worth my time, and I'd ask others to also consider that.

I wasn't censoring and I didn't go wrong any where. I removed the post because I thought something like that should not be discussed in a public forum.The post started to get into how this website functions and why... I treat that as private information. The post provided no real help to writers or customers so I removed it.

Now if you really want me to explain how and why that is not possible for constant content I’m more then willing to (just not in a forum). I didn’t know you knew search engine marketing, spiders, cookie sessions, and php.

I'm not going to get into this here, because the point was obviously lost on you, Chris. The other thread was not deteriorating into a discussion of the backend of this web site whatsoever; I'm not that stupid that I would've revealed coding or other pertinent information that could be used for this site or to copy this site.

My only intent in the other thread was to tell you that just because you don't know how to do so something doesn't mean it can't be done. I understood perfectly well, as I'm sure many others did, as to why you didn't want to add a counter to an article. That was crystal clear.

I'm just dismayed that you removed the topic and assumed I, or anybody else for that matter, wouldn't come back and look for it and/or respond. You could've dropped me a line if you truly were being genuine or worried about Constant Content. Instead, you deleted the topic without warning, you could've simply locked it instead, which would've been the wiser choice.

It's beginning to look as though the priorities and activities of CC are not of primary concern. In the last week, we've had very few requests for content and not much content has been selling at all. That, perhaps, should be top priority at the moment, not shutting down threads that have no intent of selling secrets.

I said it was starting to get into how and why constant content worked.

Just because something is possible somewhere else doesn't mean it is here. If I was to implement something as you are talking about it would sacrifice other things. This is something you didn't understand, instead you assume I don't know how to code. Or that I don't know how to research a coding issue. You can imagine how that could upset someone. It would be like me telling you how to write or that you don't know how to write.

I stated that looking back I probably should not have removed the thread. I made a mistake... I should have edited my posts instead of removing it.

I'm not sure why this is a big deal, and didn't expect this kind of reaction. I removed threads all the time. Normally useless threads that provide no help or confuse people.

My priorities are making sure the writers here are happy. Articles are still selling (and this has not slowed one bit), requests have slowed down because I'm working on the requests section and not actively marketing it because of this. These will pick up again once I'm done.

constant wrote:I said it was starting to get into how and why constant content worked.

No, it wasn't. If I could reference back to it, I would point that out, isn't that convienent?

constant wrote:Just because something is possible somewhere else doesn't mean it is here.

I didn't say otherwise. You said flatout, again if I could reference the thread I could prove this, that it couldn't be done.

constant wrote:This is something you didn't understand, instead you assume I don't now how to code.

I never assumed you didn't know how to code nor did I suggest that. I simply pointed out the error in the language you used. That's your fault, not mine.

constant wrote:I'm not sure why this is a big deal, and didn't expect this kind of reaction.

It's a "big deal" to me, because I was going to come back to thread. I had bookmarked it. I was going to respond. I had no ill intent of responding, but you quite erradictly decided that my opinion no longer matter.

You're the one who ended the discussion without so much as an after-thought; unfortunately for you, I'm not going to sit in the shadows and let a perfectly good conversation about features go down the drain like that.

Your language made it clear that the feature in question could never be done code-wise; you didn't specify that you were strictly referring to CC, instead you generalized, and I responded in kind.

That's the problem. I responded, you deleted the topic.

constant wrote:Articles are still selling (and this have not slowed one bit)...

This is a stretch of the truth, and I'm sure of it. I write based on what is in the Recently Sold Content list, I don't write based on requests, because I can make more money writing on what is selling. Many authors do this.

Trust me, I've checked, things have slowed down incredibly here at CC, and I'm not the only one who notices it.

Oh boy... your right we can not reference it. I thought I explained how and why it wasn't possible for CC. Part of the problem is I didn’t explain it all... If I would have that would have provided to much info that I do not want disclosed. So instead, I danced all around it and in some places said things I shouldn’t have. Things that put to much information out there. Again this is why I removed the thread. You don’t see it the way, I do and that’s fine. Your last post in the thread pretty much ended it, this is also why I deleted it. I had no idea you planed to add more to the thread, it was pretty much over.

Take all the shots you want... All writers here are welcome to come and go as they please. Some just wait for requested content others actively write. Sorry your no longer happy with Constant Contents results.

For the record sales are not slowing down, just ask the writers that are selling. My stats show the have been going up pretty regularly. It may be a little slow for June but June just started and 19 articles have already been sold.

This is where I'm going to have to end this conversation as well. If you would like to contact me via email that is fine.

constant wrote:Take all the shots you want...

I wasn't taking any shots, I was trying to make CC a better place, but I see now that's beyond my scope now. C'est la vie.