Con.

So I dial into a review of the new K30 and find out that I've to pay £9+ for a Pentax Plus Membership in order to receive a review of said camera. Forget it...I'll await a non-partisan appraisal from the photographic world instead.

The article you refer to would before the demise of the printed magazine have appeared there. As a no subscriber you would not have seen it or even known about it.
The articles shown in the latest news and articles frame are intended for those of us who are subscribers to this site.
It is not a con.

Becoming a member entitles you to read the articles, to take advantage of certain discounts, and enables this site to continue running.

Well said Gwyn. CHEERS Vic.

Con... Sorry, what have you been conned out of?

But it is free to post here
But it is free to post here

Just to clarify (and it might be the reason you are annoyed) this site has nothing to do with Pentax UK.

It is an entirely independent site and is not funded or affiliated with Pentax in any way.

This site is listed in the pull down 'User info' menu at Pentax.co.uk

It must have some status then.

It would be nice for the new company to bring back at least a digital pdf mag in conjunction with the publisher.

When I ran a fan club for a certain pop group we were totally independent, just like PU is. That didn't stop the record companies sending interested parties in our (approved of) direction, just like Pentax UK do.

There's no con, but sometimes newcomers may not understand what the setup is.

I always wonder at the whole "running cost's" argument presented by site owners. What are these running costs? Yeah I know a domain name costs on an annual/bi-annual basis, around a tenner for 2yrs. And then there's hosting cost's, 1 and 1 currently do 50gb space + unlimited bandwidth for a fiver a month. So how can a site justify trying to get it's users to part with their hard earned just for a few added extras like an exclusive review of a new camera? Easily!! Now if you want to see a real con, I have a nigerian uncle who needs.........

Well I'm speculating, but as the company that runs PU, EPZ, FPME and Photodo has offices, staff and therefore overheads, it looks to me like they need to pay their way and make a profit as well. The staff are also highly qualified in their various fields, so that too will be a consideration.

The actual domain costs and hosting costs are, I would think, insignificant compared to that.

So say you host s site with 1 & 1 whose going to build it for you? Whose going to design the graphics? Whose going to write content? Whose going to moderate it? Whose going to do the finance part? Whose going to administer the advertising? Then there's moderating etc...

Running a website is a lot more than just buying web hosting. If you have a static site then there is very little involved, start running a live site and cost significantly increase.

Also whilst webhosters promote unlimited bandwidth packages the reality is similar to unlimited internet packages which might have restrictions.

Some people can't get their heads around the fact that websites don't magically appear like mushrooms in a field. Somebody has to create them and maintain them.

I don't understand why that seems to be so difficult for some people to grasp.

G

Just think of all the people your keeping in a job

Spill the beans, John. Mott the Hoople? Ella Fitzgerald? Beethoven?

The Village People!!