[Big Dave]

Working ok now.

[andy_e]

Hooray!

[andy_e]

I've noticed an (unobtrusive) advert on the site, let's hope this funds its long-lived existence!

[Jon Pearson]

Quick update - I've had enough in donations to keep the site going well into the new year. Thanks everyone. I still can't be bothered to update it though.

Oh, and sorry about the adverts. They're not actually making much money so I might scrap them.

[Jon Pearson]

The yorkshiregrit funds run out at the end of November. If you'd like it to survive, now's the time for more donations. As before, I'll keep it going as long there is money to do so.

[Dolly]

How much do you need for a year Jon ?
PM if dont want to post ?

[tommytwotone]

Hi Jon,

I'd be keen to find this out too - would be happy to be partly responsible to keeping the site going if a few of us locals could club together.

Any chance you could let us know a ballpark figure per annum?

Cheers,

Tom

[andy_e]

It says £24/month on the website. Please don't let it die. Pass it on to someone responsible Jon, they won't ruin it!

[tommytwotone]

I'd happily take on 4 month's worth, sure a couple of other Yorkshire locals would chip in. Will sort a donation out this week.

[Jon Pearson]

How much do you need for a year Jon ?

£24 a month still.

[Barratt]

Jon ,

Do you want to send me details of your spec, usage, data etc and i'll see if its practical for me to host for free.

A

[andyd]

Good skills Andy, I like your thinking.
I use Yorkshire grit all the time now and will be making a donation. The thing that's holding me back is not knowing that it's a sustainable investment at a time when work is a bit sporadic. I'd gladly pay for a month if I knew that it would be around for another year. Who else is in? ( do 'they' know about this on the other side?)

[slackline]

( do 'they' know about this on the other side?)

No idea, but I'd imagine as UKC is a commercial venture advertising for a competitor (after all UKC has its own database of routes/boulder problems) would probably come at a premium.

[daprince]

I'm in for a month.

[daprince]

And I would be in for more if my business could get some advertising on there. Id rather support the community and hopefully stay in work rather give it to google for adwords.

[Jon Pearson]

The BMC is going to cover the cost for the immediate future.

No need for donations now.

Thanks.

[slackline]

The BMC is going to cover the cost for the immediate future.

No need for donations now.

Thanks.

Good on the BMC    (would it harm to have donations kept open to provide a pool of funds for the future?).

[Bonjoy]

Another  to the BMC. A very sensible use of funds if you ask me

[Will Hunt]

 

Thanks BMC!

[andy_e]

  Hooray BMC!

[Greg C]

Hmm, I'm little ambivalent with this. On the one hand great YG will continue, but on the other I do think if a governing body is going to fund the site there should be some obligation for the moderator/site owner to keep the site up to date, even if it's just a case of recording first ascents. Maybe this is the understanding, I hope so.

Certainly an interesting precedent.

[slackline]

Hmm, I'm little ambivalent with this. On the one hand great YG will continue, but on the other I do think if a governing body is going to fund the site there should be some obligation for the moderator/site owner to keep the site up to date, even if it's just a case of recording first ascents. Maybe this is the understanding, I hope so.

Certainly an interesting precedent.

that's a fair point

[andyd]

Fantastic news 

[Bonjoy]

Hmm, I'm little ambivalent with this. On the one hand great YG will continue, but on the other I do think if a governing body is going to fund the site there should be some obligation for the moderator/site owner to keep the site up to date, even if it's just a case of recording first ascents. Maybe this is the understanding, I hope so.

Certainly an interesting precedent.

Good point. 
I think it's preferable that sites  heavily reliant on user added content should be directly updatable by users, as is the case with pb.info. That way the site isn't tied to the fate/whim of the creator. That said, even then you need some basic maintenance from the creator or the site gets ever more untidy and clunky, as is sadly becoming the case with pb.info....

[Greg C]

Hmm, I'm little ambivalent with this. On the one hand great YG will continue, but on the other I do think if a governing body is going to fund the site there should be some obligation for the moderator/site owner to keep the site up to date, even if it's just a case of recording first ascents. Maybe this is the understanding, I hope so.

Certainly an interesting precedent.

Good point. 
I think it's preferable that sites  heavily reliant on user added content should be directly updatable by users, as is the case with pb.info. That way the site isn't tied to the fate/whim of the creator. That said, even then you need some basic maintenance from the creator or the site gets ever more untidy and clunky, as is sadly becoming the case with pb.info....

I agree, but YG is not updatable by users (other than grade voting and comments), Jon has to implement the submitted information himself, which I guess is at the heart of the problem. This fact is that this means that the site (in its current state of operation) deteriorates as a useful medium month after month, year after year. The site has an Alexa ranking of 20,000,000+ I suspect if you looked at its ranking 5 years ago it would have been somewhere around 3000,000.

Putting all the opinion, detail and emotion aside, the biggest issue facing Yorkshire bouldering is that it no longer has a universal hub to record first ascent information. This is a travesty and one that needs attending to some how. Having said all that, I'm not implying that it should be Jon's job to sort out the issue.