# Is WR becoming a paid service?



## Alice_2.0

Hello,

I just came across the "heavy user" message for the first time and was wondering what the chances are that we will have to pay to use WR in the future.
I've been using this site for so long, and it truly seems to be one of the most successful online dictionaries ever... I always recommend it to my students... and of course, I've become really fond of it in many ways. 

That's why I don't understand the need to turn it into a paid service. Well, actually I could take a wild guess... but I'd rather wait and see if someone can englighten me about this process.

Thanks in advance.
Regards.


----------



## swift

Hello, Alice.

Does this answer your question?


> *Heavy Users*
> Did you see a message that said that you were a "heavy user"? We are showing that to the heaviest users, those making more than 1000 searches per month. We are thrilled that you find the site so useful and are equally happy to be able to create, work on, and continue improving the WordReference website. *Currently, you will not be blocked if you do not pay*. You can continue to use the site. This might change in the future, but for now, you will only see the message and the ads, but please consider becoming a WordReference Supporter.
> 
> WordReference Supporter - No ads


----------



## sound shift

What's meant by "more than 1000 *searches* per month"? Searches in the "Dictionary and thread title search" box?


----------



## Alice_2.0

swift said:


> Hello, Alice.
> 
> Does this answer your question?



Hello, swift. 

No, it doesn't. I already read the whole message, and that's why I specifically asked for the future.
Thank you anyway.


----------



## Loob

I'm intrigued, too.  Does that mean that people may in future have to pay for searching, but they won't have to pay for starting new threads without searching for previous ones?


----------



## swift

Alice_2.0 said:


> that's why I specifically asked for the future.


Well, the message does say that this _might _change _in the future_.  I think we’ll have to wait for Mike’s feedback on this.


----------



## Alice_2.0

swift said:


> Well, the message does say that this _might _change _in the future_.  I think we’ll have to wait for Mike’s feedback on this.



As I said, I already read the message. 
I thought it was clear enough from my first post that I'd like to get some information on the future of this site, if possible.


----------



## mkellogg

Hi Alice and everybody,



> Is WR becoming a paid service?


Maybe, but only the heaviest of users would pay, and I would create exceptions for groups that cannot pay.

As I explained somewhat in the "Supporter" page, advertising has been good for us, but it is not ideal.  The ads can be a pain, they can be hard to control and they use a lot of bandwidth.  If I can get some people to pay, we will reduce our reliance on ads or even get rid of them completely.

Who would pay if we do this? Only the heaviest of users, those seeing many hundreds of dictionary pages per month.  The vast majority of casual users will not notice anything, or maybe they will notice that there are fewer or no ads.

If we do ask people (who see thousands upon thousand of pages per year) to pay, we will want to create exceptions.  I have no desire to charge forum contributors money. I am still trying to find a way to exclude Senior Members from this!  Also, Alice, your situation as a teacher is interesting.  If the heavy users are students whose teacher can't really recommend a service to the students that would cost money, even if it were only $10/year, I would want to find a way to create an exception for them.

Some more answers:
 - "the future of this site" - If it works, I think you will like what you see. I will be freed to do many things differently if we are able to get rid of the reliance on ads.
 - "more than 1000 *searches* per month" - These are dictionary searches. The forums are not included.
 - The forums are free and will remain free for everybody to use. Forum page views don't count in the 1000/month.

I welcome your concerns, comments and feedback, either in this thread or through Contact Us.  I also would like you to realize that WordReference can be much better if we are able to reduce or eliminate the advertising.


----------



## Alice_2.0

Hi Mike,

Thank you so much for such a detailed explanation. I had no idea about any "Supporter" page, so I couldn't read it. 

To be honest, being myself a heavy user, ads have never bothered me here... not nearly. I use an ad blocking extension and it doesn't prevent me from using the site, but makes it quite comfortable instead. However, I understand this may not be the same for other users. 

Even if I love this site, and many of my students could afford to pay for it, I still don't know if I would recommend them a paying service. It'd feel kind of weird to me.

Anyway, I appreciate your feedback on the situation and your willingness to find a solution which suits everyone.
Thanks again.

Cheers!


----------



## mkellogg

Alice_2.0 said:


> I use an ad blocking extension


That's funny. Well, then you might understand why ads aren't paying the bills so well anymore.


----------



## swift

Alice_2.0 said:


> I had no idea about any "Supporter" page, so I couldn't read it.


There’s a link in the dictionary pages that you can click to learn more about Supporters. It’s the same l provided above.





Alice_2.0 said:


> I use an ad blocking extension and it doesn't prevent me from using the site


Dictionary users are encouraged not to use ad-blockers and report obtrusive ads instead:


jann said:


> Of course if you use ad-blocking software, you won't see ads. But for the sake of the site, it would really be better if you added an exception for WR. After all, you won't see ads on the forums at all if you are signed in, and the ads you'll see in the dictionary should not be obtrusive... and if they are obtrusive, we want you to report them so that we can get rid of those ones [...]


----------



## Alice_2.0

mkellogg said:


> That's funny. Well, then you might understand why ads aren't paying the bills so well anymore.



Well, I'm sorry but I don't recall having read any rules which forbid using such a tool. In fact, I don't even recall reading any official announcement or request asking users to please deactivate our ad blocking extension (in which case I wouldn't have had any problems to do so at first). But I guess you are knowledgeable and experienced enough so as not to think I am the only user who uses ad blocking.

I find it even funnier that you didn't even mention about ad blocking in your explanation; on the contrary, you mainly complained about ads being a pain...
In any case, I was just surprised to see the "heavy users" news and thought I'd ask about the situation. You offered an explanation and I thanked you for it and didn't question your reasons.



swift said:


> There’s a link in the dictionary pages that you can click to learn more about Supporters. It’s the same l provided above.
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary users are encouraged not to use ad-blockers and report obtrusive ads instead:



Thanks, but I had originally clicked on the "heavy user" message and had gotten the same one you posted in the first place, that's why I thought the "Supporter page" might be something different.

As I had already said above, I had no idea about ad blocking extensions being disliked in sites like this. Every time I enter a website where they don't want people to use ad blocking extensions, I get a clear request and I just deactivate it. I would have said it's understandable that we all want to make our browsing experience as smooth as possible, which of course doesn't mean we can't support certain websites by letting their ads pop up, as long as it doesn't become a nightmare.


----------



## celiaclara

Hello. Yesterday I paid $20 to help support wordreference and I keep getting both ads and the alert that says that I'm a heavy user. I thought payment also meant getting rid of the ads, but maybe I misunderstood? Thank you!


----------



## mkellogg

celiaclara said:


> I keep getting both ads and the alert


Hi Celia, Try logging out of the forums, and logging back in, making sure to click "Stay logged in" when you log back in.  An hour later, the ads should be gone.  Thank you very much for becoming a "Supporter".


----------



## Lucian Hodoboc

Alice_2.0 said:


> I use an ad blocking extension and it doesn't prevent me from using the site, but makes it quite comfortable instead.


Ads are generally the main source of revenue that help the webmasters (site owners and developers) pay for the hosting bill and yearly domain renewal, so it is recommended to not use an ad blocking plugin, or to at least disable it for the sites you find helpful if you want to support their existence.

Nothing is free. Websites don't run on air. They require resources (disk space, bandwidth etc.) to stay online. Someone has to pay for said resources. If a website doesn't require a subscription, the least you can do (if you can't or don't want to donate) is to not block the ads with an ad blocking extension.


----------



## celiaclara

Hi mkellogg, I did just as you suggested and everything worked out well -no ads! Thank you.


----------



## Alice_2.0

Lucian Hodoboc said:


> Ads are generally the main source of revenue that help the webmasters (site owners and developers) pay for the hosting bill and yearly domain renewal, so it is recommended to not use an ad blocking plugin, or to at least disable it for the sites you find helpful if you want to support their existence.
> 
> Nothing is free. Websites don't run on air. They require resources (disk space, bandwidth etc.) to stay online. Someone has to pay for said resources. If a website doesn't require a subscription, the least you can do (if you can't or don't want to donate) is to not block the ads with an ad blocking extension.



Did you happen to read my latest post? Geez, it seems I'm a terrible person for naively having mentioned the fact that I use an ad-blocking extension. Like no one else does!

Look, I didn't ask anyone to build any website for me to use for free. As I already said, every time I am requested to disable my ad-blocking extension, I have no problem; if the site becomes a nightmare to use, I'll just stop using it, unless I consider it worth paying for. If I am not required to do so, I'll just assume the ads are not vital for the website maintenance, for whatever reasons.

For the record, I disabled it on WR after getting to know how important ads are for this site. It doesn't make any difference to me, as the ads here seem not to be obtrusive. Had I known it had such a great importance, I wouldn't have hesitated to disable the god*am* extension from the beginning. Because in case you haven't noticed yet, I am a senior member and have enojoyed this site for a long long time. 

I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers here. I knew it would be a controversial topic to discuss, but honestly, I didn't expect such rude attitudes.


----------



## mkellogg

Blocking ads on an ad-supported websites can be an emotional subject, as you can see!  Personally, I am just trying to move on to find other sources of revenue to support our development.


----------



## Alice_2.0

Sure, the problem is there is no way to guess whether a website depends on ads to keep running, unless someone kindly lets you know. I guess "kindly" is too much to ask sometimes, though. Good luck.


----------



## Loob

I'm still intrigued. Alice is a Senior Member. If she logs in when she uses the site, she shouldn't see any adverts, should she? In other words, isn't the "ad blocking" issue a red herring?

Perhaps I'm missing something  - it wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## Loob

Also, celiaclara is a forum contributor,  with 108 posts to her name. How does her 'supporter' payment square with Mike's statement


mkellogg said:


> I have no desire to charge forum contributors money. I am still trying to find a way to exclude Senior Members from this!


?


----------



## siares

Everybody sees ads on dictionary site, as I understood it those are removed when one becomes a supporter. In the future heavy users may be charged, but not heavy users who are also senior members.


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> If she logs in when she uses the site, she shouldn't see any adverts, should she?


As explained by Siares, she won’t see any ads on the forums after she logs in. Advertisements will only be visible on the dictionary pages, provided that you’re not using an ad-blocker.

Also, forum searches are excluded:


mkellogg said:


> "more than 1000 *searches *per month" - These are dictionary searches. The forums are not included.
> 
> The forums are free and will remain free for everybody to use. Forum page views don't count in the 1000/month.


----------



## mkellogg

Loob said:


> How does her 'supporter' payment square with Mike's statement


The message that shows in the dictionaries currently shows to everybody, whether a Senior Member or not. I _plan to_ make it not show to forum regulars, but we haven't quite figured out how to do that yet.


----------



## JamesM

Alice_2.0 said:


> Sure, the problem is there is no way to guess whether a website depends on ads to keep running, unless someone kindly lets you know. I guess "kindly" is too much to ask sometimes, though. Good luck.



I don't think anyone has been rude to you, Alice_2.0.  It was nicely explained.

As for your statement about depending on ads, the _only _reason a *free *service like WordReference has ads is that it's the _only _source of income for the site. This is true for all internet sites, not just WordReference.

It looks like Mike is trying some new methods.  I hope it works well for him.  After nearly 10 years of use I know I've gotten so much more out of this site than I've ever contributed.


----------



## Alice_2.0

JamesM said:


> I don't think anyone has been rude to you, Alice_2.0.  It was nicely explained.



Well, that is *your* opinion. There are many ways in which one can show rudeness, as well as a million reasons why one can consider someone has been rude to them. But it's okay, I don't intend to have a discussion on whether I'm right or wrong about my perceptions. I'll just quote Mike: "Blocking ads on an ad-supported websites can be an emotional subject, as you can see!".



JamesM said:


> As for your statement about depending on ads, the _only _reason a *free *service like WordReference has ads is that it's the _only _source of income for the site. This is true for all internet sites, not just WordReference.



Sorry, but that's overgeneralizing. There are sites, such as blogs, where people use ads as an extra source of income, nothing else. They keep the site running by using other resources. So, again, if no one tells me that ads are vital for a certain site, there's no way I can figure it out.

Anyway, I'm tired of justifying myself over and over again, as if I had killed someone.
You can think whatever you want.


----------



## JamesM

Nice meeting you.


----------



## mkellogg

Don't worry about it, Alice. You have raised some good points that I will take into consideration.  Maybe we will put up some sort of notice that WordReference relies on advertising for revenue. Thank you.


----------



## Alice_2.0

JamesM said:


> Nice meeting you.



Can't say the same.



mkellogg said:


> Don't worry about it, Alice. You have raised some good points that I will take into consideration.  Maybe we will put up some sort of notice that WordReference relies on advertising for revenue. Thank you.



You're most welcome.


----------



## Transpac07

I just paid my $20 for being a heavy user -- and did so gladly as I cannot begin to quantify what I have received for free from WR.  I am extremely grateful to Mike and crew for their efforts over the years.  They have created an extraordinary site and the quantity and quality of information is staggering.  I feel that my economic support of WR is like supporting Wikipedia and I hope that those who can afford to support the site will do so.

That being said, I am also intimately aware of how internet advertising works as I was an exec in the industry for a number of years.  However, as a consumer I am not "typical".  I have never clicked on an ad and doubt I ever will.  Also, I use an ad blocker because the introduction of ads that use "flash" started causing problems with my computer -- it would freeze and have to be re-booted.  And it would happen frequently.   Since I am a heavy user of WR, it started happening a lot.  I had discovered that if I went back to the home page after every search, the frequency decreased dramatically because there's no advertising there.  But I still had occasional problems so installed the ad blocker as it cleaned up other sites as well.  

Advertisers look at websites as if they are bill boards as well as a doorway to a different web site that offers something for sale.  So ad blockers do decrease the revenue that sites receive even if you don't click on an ad.  Sites get paid for "views" of an ad and a "click-thru" to another site pays much more to the original site.

Mike -- I hope this approach works for you.  And as always, thank you again for what is, IMHO, undoubtedly one of the best sites on the web.


----------



## Alice_2.0

So the 'heavy user' message had stopped appearing for a few days... but now I've finally gotten this new warning about the paying being mandatory. Sooner than expected, I must say.

It seems senior members were finally included in the new policy too.
I guess it's time for me to check if WR is really that much better than other online free dictionaries.


----------



## mkellogg

Alice_2.0 said:


> I guess it's time for me to check if WR is really that much better than other online free dictionaries.


Yes, for many of our heaviest users, €1.5 per month is far too expensive and will leave. (You are a good example. You have seen over 1000 pages in 7 days, and you doubt that it is worth it.) Others will decide that they can afford it and stay.  In the end, WordReference will probably be stronger and a better place without the ads.   That is the theory at least! We will see what happens.


----------



## Alice_2.0

mkellogg said:


> Yes, for many of our heaviest users, €1.5 per month is far too expensive and will leave. (You are a good example. You have seen over 1000 pages in 7 days, and you doubt that it is worth it.) Others will decide that they can afford it and stay.  In the end, WordReference will probably be stronger and a better place without the ads.   That is the theory at least! We will see what happens.



I never said I thought it was expensive, those are your own words. I just don't like your approach. The ads thing seems to me a lame excuse, for I disabled the ad blocker as I said and no ad has diturbed me ever since. I guess you could now tell me that it's because a lot of generous users have become supporters and you're already earning enough money so as not to have the need to keep relying on ads. But I could reply, what's the point in charging any more members then?

Yes, I've been a heavy user for a long long time, but I've also offered as much help as I've been able to, and have extensively recommended the site. I thought we senior members who had made some sort of useful contribution along the years deserved a bit of respect. Did you really need to try and make me feel ashamed by disclosing such personal data? I used to take you for another kind of guy. Of course, by treating me like that it is you who become exposed. And yes, this has been the most convenient dictionary I've been using so far, but not the only one. Nothing is perfect.

You know, I was so fond of this site that €1.5 per month would have been nothing. Now the mere thought of contributing to it feels disgusting to me.
You are not the admin I thought you were. I thought we were some sort of community, but you don't really appreciate your users, you appreciate their money.
Now you can go ahead and ban me, for all I care.

Good luck.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, Mike... how dare you expect to be paid for the hardware, bandwidth, time and effort you put into building this site over the last decade!!  You should be _paying _to run this website for our benefit and working a day job so that you have money to pour into it, like you did in the early years.  Shame on you for your lack of generosity!


----------



## tsoapm

Alice_2.0 said:


> Every time I enter a website where they don't want people to use ad blocking extensions, I get a clear request and I just deactivate it. I would have said it's understandable that we all want to make our browsing experience as smooth as possible, which of course doesn't mean we can't support certain websites by letting their ads pop up, as long as it doesn't become a nightmare.


I use Adblock Plus, which has an Acceptable Ads option; this thread encouraged me to disable it completely on WR. It seems to me that users and webmasters have to meet somewhere in the middle with web advertising, and Acceptable Ads seems a rather reasonable initiative in that direction to me, but I'm not aware that many sites have run with the idea. Most seem to directly request that any ad blockers are completely disabled.

I would be interested to learn whether this might represent a solution; I imagine the ads here might the criteria and it's just a question of requesting whitelisting? But I also gather that this is just one ad blocker among many. As I say, I think people have to meet in the middle, and in an ideal world, I'd wish for such a solution to become widespread, but I'm not that optimistic about that.

Speaking for myself, I understand that advertising is necessary; I use my ad blocker to stop the web from completely sucking on the many sites which are plagued by ads, not here, or at least not intentionally.  I'd happily accept advertising on the forum too if it wasn't intrusive e.g. met the above criteria.


----------



## worldexplorer

I just saw today the message about being a heavy user and basically having to pay to continue using the site. Everybody's situation is different, but a daily translation four days a week is my bread and butter and not highly profitable. I guess I'll pay because I consider this site extremely valuable to me, as are a couple of other sites, but please don't make assumptions that using it heavily make for a rich pocket. I have to say that the message didn't feel right, but I understand the need.


----------



## Transpac07

I know a lot of people who would gladly donate $20/year to the site but didn't receive the notice.  And I think that particularly schools would ask students to support the site, if they can afford it.  But again, the schools, teachers and students may not know of the issue.  

Wikipedia periodically posts a notice asking for contributions and maybe that's an option, particularly if you explain that the goal is to make the site an advertising free zone.  I would have contributed more than $20 if there had been a way to do so.  Just a couple of ideas.

That being said, I also find it hard to believe that anyone who uses the site heavily would consider $20/yr or $1.67/mo, a huge burden.  I use the site strictly for my personal edification but my teachers, who both use the site to assist them in their commercial enterprises, had absolutely no problem with a user fee.


----------



## Loob

I still don't understand.
If you use the dictionaries from the forums, you pay nothing, however heavy a user you are. Right?


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> I still don't understand.
> If you use the dictionaries from the forums, you pay nothing, however heavy a user you are. Right?


Does this help?


----------



## Loob

swift said:


> Does this help?


Erm ... no.


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> Erm ... no.


I see. It looks like you’re having trouble to understand the difference between a dictionary page and a forum page. Let’s see if this clarifies things for you.

*Dictionary and thread title search:* We use this tool to find definitions, translations, synonyms, collocations... You need to *select a dictionary* (e.g. English definition, Spanish synonyms, French-English).

Let’s say you want to look up the translation of ‘heavy’ into Spanish:





When you click the magnifying glass or the new window button, you are taken to a *dictionary page*. *The heavy users policy applies here*.

The image below depicts the dictionary page. This is the place where you’ll find the translations. Here, you’ll find the thread titles containing ‘heavy’.




These searches are included in the heavy users statistics. If you view thousands of dictionary pages on a monthly basis, you will get the “heavy users” notification.

*Forum search: *We use this searchbox to find threads and posts. You cannot select a dictionary. This tool is for forums content only. *The heavy users policy does not apply here*.

Let’s suppose now that you want to search for posts and threads that contain the phrase “day in and day out”. You can do this using the “Forum Search” box. This is the forum search box:





.
When you use this tool, you are not taken to a dictionary page. You are taken to a forum page: “Search Results for Query: <your query>”.




This search will be excluded from the heavy users statistics.


----------



## Loob

And then there's this, swifty:


mkellogg said:


> I have no desire to charge forum contributors money. I am still trying to find a way to exclude Senior Members from this!


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> And then there's this, swifty:


I think Mike is trying to figure out a way to exclude Senior Members and other groups:





> If this is not practical for you, please write us through the Contact Us form explaining why. Thank you!
> 
> If you are angry and want to yell at us, you can do that, too.
> 
> WordReference Supporter - No ads


----------



## Loob

Yes. Hence my


Loob said:


> If you use the dictionaries from the forums, you pay nothing, however heavy a user you are. Right?


----------



## swift

Well, that is not the case yet. That's what Mike is working on. And I suppose the exclusion rule would not be restricted to searches performed from the forums.


----------



## ErnestoPavan

I just made a forum account in order to pay those $20. I use Wordreference _a lot_ and thought it worth my money.

That said... I was initially put off by the request for money, as I presume many other people have been. What the owner has done is, essentially, aggressive monetizing: "pay me now or you'll be denied a service that used to be free." That is going to grate on a lot of people's nerves. I would've liked a "freemium" model much better. What's been done is, essentially, asking people to pay for the exact same service they used to enjoy for free (and that many websites are still providing for free).


----------



## Transpac07

What the owner has done is, essentially, aggressive monetizing: "pay me now or you'll be denied a service that used to be free."
What's been done is, essentially, asking people to pay for the exact same service they used to enjoy for free (and that many websites are still providing for free).


But you did get something extra for the $20  -- no advertising.  Maybe you don't mind the ads being served but here they have figured out how to make it so you can't stop the videos nor turn down the sound, which they have cranked up.  It is extremely annoying.  I paid extra for a Kindle that has no advertising.   Maybe if more sites stop relying on advertising to cover the costs, advertisers will back off from their aggressive monetizing.

I also have not found another site with the quantity and quality of information that WR offers, but admit that there may be one out there.


----------



## yirgster

I contributed the $20 but I use an ad-blocker too. And have for years.


----------



## Loob

I imagine Mike will explain what he's doing in due course.


----------



## wanikhlas

hello all, i have contributed 20usd but i still cant access the dictionary. Do i have to wait for 60 minutes or is there a button or something that i have to do more. TQ for the help.


----------



## celiaclara

Hello. As I said earlier, I paid 20$ and thought that I'd get rid of ads forever... which hasn't happened. Not only do I still get ads, but recently -for the past two days- I've been getting them ON the search rectangle, which means I can't look for a word unless I open the ad!!!!!!! I would appreciate it if somebody could explain what's going on and how to get back to what used to be a comfortable and fast dictionary. Thank you!


----------



## yirgster

My suggestion: use an ad blocker. You've paid your $20.


----------



## forHisglory

I have been using WR only in the past few months and it was very annoying having frozen pages and delayed information, etc. I could identify one of the adds that made it freeze. I decided to become a supporter and paid my 20.00 because it is VERY MUCH WORTH to me. I appreciate the great help I get and how everything works, even though I am still learning what forum to use. While getting something for free is very good and welcome, that is not free of COST.


----------



## celiaclara

Right, I too became a supporter, but I still get ads. How did you manage to get rid of them, forHisglory?


----------



## forHisglory

celiaclara said:


> Right, . How did you manage to get rid of them, forHisglory?



celiaclara, I did not have to do anything special to get rid of them. Immediately after becoming a supporter, i was free of ads. I am sorry I cannot help you here. I hope your issue gets resolved to your satisfaction.


----------



## celiaclara

Thank you, forHisglory. This is really strange!


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Hi,

When ads appear, one just has to scroll down a bit and one can continue to read the thread (that's what I do), so is there really a need for an ad blocker,? All the less so if the groups paying to show ads reckon their ads' effectiveness by the number of times they're shown and not by the number of replies they get (which, if I've correctly understood what I've read here, is the case). At any rate, charging advertisers - but ideally not users - to pay for the running costs mentioned above is, I think, reasonable. What I don't get is the mention of "groups"; aren't all members, from 'New' to 'Senior' to 'Heavy', individuals?

If you think that an ad is inappropriate, send Mike a PM about it (I've done this), and he'll check it out.

I'd llke to know, though, what the policy is for individual teachers recommending WR to their students. Do these teachers and their students count as "groups"?

ErnestoPavan, what's a "freemium model"? If you mean "paying more for the privilege of _not_ seeing ads", wouldn't that be a "paymium"model"?

Addendum:There's also this thread, started on June 20th, 2017 by DarkSkull, I have paid as a supporter, but I are still are seeing ads, last post (by the OP) on Wednesday at 2:42 PM CET. I wonder if these two threads might be merged?


----------



## mkellogg

celiaclara said:


> Not only do I still get ads, but recently -for the past two days- I've been getting them ON the search rectangle


This was a programming error that we got fixed.

I stopped getting updates about this thread. I cleaned up some of the comments and am closing it. If you have something to say, please continue the conversation in another existing thread, create a new one or write through the Contact Us form.

Thank you.


----------

