Scribd Puts My Old Uploads Behind a Paywall and Goes Onto My Shitlist
blog.ericgoldman.orgI think there are a few takeaways here:
* You have to charge from the very beginning. If you start a free service, and then try to establish a pay system afterward, your users will feel tricked and trapped and they will rebel loudly. Scribd seems to have been in a hurry to get adoption, so they made it free to host documents; as this guy said though, he much preferred hosting with Scribd over doing it manually on his university's web server. That could have been Scribd's value proposition, and a small yearly fee for that probably would have worked OK.
* SaaS could get itself in trouble if there are too many incidents like this. I already hear from clients that are concerned about using online services; the most common questions are, "What if they change their terms?", "What if they go away?", and those are legitimate concerns. Many of my clients aren't the most computer-interested people, so if they have concerns like that, then that means that stories like this have penetrated very deep into the consumer market.
> If you start a free service, and then try to establish a pay system afterward, your users will feel tricked and trapped and they will rebel loudly.
If you lock behind a paywall things previously available for free, sure. And they'll be right too.
An other option is to add features which are only behind a new paywall. Issue then is providing additional services of value and a way for users to discover them.
Just as a case study, Reddit did exactly that, and their users flipped out. Reddit ended up doing OK with it -- they've made at least enough from it to be able to afford some infrastructure upgrades and at least one new hire -- but there was a pretty vocal not-small group of users that were unhappy about it.
The initial response was to flip out, but once people realized reddit wasn't going to switch to a pay-only site the outrage died down. It might have only worked because reddit users/admins try so hard to foster a sense of community, but it seemed to me like reddit showed how to set up a pay service correctly, and people were just too jaded because of sites like Scribd to realize it.
> ...once people realized reddit wasn't going to switch to a pay-only site the outrage died down.
I'm not very active in Reddit anymore -- HN is my last distraction now -- but I did watch that situation carefully because it was interesting. I got the sense that the outrage died down only because Reddit promised to migrate its paid features into the "free" arena. Until then, a lot of people were angry that there was going to be some kind of "elite" class on the site.
Practically speaking, even if Reddit had managed to permanently piss off this chunk of its userbase, I doubt they would have left altogether, and even if they did, there's no way to gauge what fraction of Reddit's traffic was really represented by these guys. It could've been (and probably was) just a tempest in a teapot.
But either way, in that specific case, there would have been some vocal rebellion if the paid-for features stayed locked behind a paywall.
> I got the sense that the outrage died down only because Reddit promised to migrate its paid features into the "free" arena. Until then, a lot of people were angry that there was going to be some kind of "elite" class on the site.
As a Charter and gold reddit member... not really. It was well understood early on that most of the "gold" features would be stuff that was too expensive (computationally) to give to everybody (especially before the server upgrade), at least from the start.
The great fear gripping everybody was truly that Reddit would somehow become "for-pay", and that content previously free would now become non-free (a fear which didn't make much sense as the community is the one providing the content, and the admins might not be too media and ad-savvy, but they're not stupid)
> But either way, in that specific case, there would have been some vocal rebellion if the paid-for features stayed locked behind a paywall.
Doubtful. 1000 comments/thread is a nice feature for instance, but it didn't exist (at all) before gold and it's not exactly a deal-breaker.
Just another case study, I did that too and it worked like a charm. (adding features, and charging for those).
Reddit Gold? Yeah, not the same thing as what Scribd is doing here.
Edit: Was mistaken. Assumed the parent was responding to the entire comment, rather than just a part.
The parent was pretty clearly in response to, "An other option is to add features which are only behind a new paywall."
Ahh, true. I read it as a reply to the entire comment, not a specific part (mostly because that's the way it was formatted), but you are correct. I'll edit my original comment. Thanks. =)
It seems like Scribd would solve more problems if they let uploaders pay to give their readers free access. I'm not the Scribd user; the guy publishing with them is.
Scribd would rather increase the amount of content on it's servers by making uploading easy and free. While the guy that publishes the article is really the Scribd user, he can publish elsewhere if the price makes it too much of a hassle. The viewer has less of a choice, if it's only published on Scribd it's either pay up or go without.
I don't agree with their choice (or methods) but it makes sense for them to do this.
I meant to suggest a strict superset of their current system- keep uploading easy and free, and the reader or publisher can pay for access after the "free" period. Scribd seems to have had a pretty large hook in this guy- I'm sure he's not the only one.
I think the takeaway is a lot broader: never assume that a company won't do evil things with your data if you don't have a service contract with them saying that they can't. See also: http://xkcd.com/743
More scary: http://xkcd.com/792/
charging from the beginning actually scratches two itches: the business can evolve steadily, the revenue benefits the company. And second, as a paying customer I have exactly those "rights" the OP would like to have in this scenario. Trying to implement the early-pay-plan is a whole other story, and I doubt that it would have worked for scribd, had they started charging money without any content. classic chicken-egg-problem
Early Scribd broke the web by taking open format documents, putting them in a proprietary wrapper, and calling it a "service".
Middle Scribd fixed their own brokenness by moving to HTML 5 (which is sometimes more convenient than a PDF, and is certainly "open" and accessible).
Late Scribd is again breaking the web by moving documents behind a paywall. Some qualities are just baked into a company's DNA.
Thank you. I've never understood why Scribd exists at all. The web has done fine at moving documents around before Scribd, and it'll keep doing it fine long after they disappear.
I would prefer a service that just focuses on the .pdf discovery rather than a viewer, so like Google Scholar with some social services around it.
You can still get the viewing stats, your just not at the services whim, simply move your file and the service will just remove the listing. Makes sense to me, probably some stuff like this out there seems fairly obvious.
emailing pdf's is not my definition of "doing fine", I am not following the current drama much, but I do thank scribd for letting me look at content I would have otherwise ignored on seeing ".pdf"
I always thought that Scribd was just a reaction to how awful Adobe's free PDF reader has become.
What is the problem with pdf ? Editing a document in html is too painful.
What does that quality of Adobe's pdf reader have to do with the ease of editing documents in html or pdf?
I can't actually believe that they would go the paywall route. It honestly seemed a few months ago when they added HTML5 support that they were going in a really great direction and now I will avoid them like the plague.
I think the whole HTML5 thing was a big PR exercise to improve the way they are seen. Possibly also a big play to get acquired - "We're doing cool stuff with fonts! Buy us!".
Fundamentally though, they're about locking away documents behind a pay wall. And personally, I don't see their value proposition at all.
Their value proposition was to not lock documents away behind a pay wall. Even then they were not doing very well because of all the tag clouds and their irrelevant appearance on search results. They were the first though and do not have much competition. Quite an opportunity for someone looking for an idea.
Scribd's HTML5 was about having crawlable (read: show up in Google) content.
Nothing wrong with that, btw.
I think it was just about "gaming Google" -- at some point the links to pages on scribd had higher ranks than original pdfs. I consider that more like successful spamming of Google search than long-term feature.
How is it now? Do they still have higher rank? I'd consider than that a bug in Google ranking.
It's ok, but pdf's already show up in google, and are already readable in browser.
From the FAQ (this is crazy):
Your documents will automatically be entered into the Archive after an initial period of time. You can recall a document from the Archive by opening the document's properties, clicking the Archive Status tab, then clicking the Recall from Archive command. If a document's properties page doesn't have an Archive Status tab, then that document has not yet been placed into the Scribd Archive. To learn how to edit your documents' properties, please see our Writer's Guide.
After a couple months your document will return to the Archive, and you can repeat this process to recall it again.
Or you can go change the global setting so that none of your documents go into the archive.
Conveniently not mentioned in the FAQ.
I changed it for my own account only after reading the article. Funny enough, it's an inversely-worded checkbox in there (unlike all of the other options):
[ ] Do not include my documents in the Scribd Archive program. Learn more.
I don't care if they want to establish a paywall, that's there perogative, what I don't like is taking my content, which I uploaded under the belief I'd be able to host it there at no cost to end users (persumably subsidised by ads) and then charging my readers for it. I post my content (mostly slides from talks and such) for readers, I'd probably even pay to put my content there, it's rather convenient.
The last part: Absolutely. They got it the wrong way. I mean - okay - they have the right to establish the paywall.
But they are scare off the wrong people: the readers. Why use a service to pay for reading something that the publishers WANT to give me for free? Not enough: Many publishers would pay for it, as it is convenient and absolutely user friendly.
This won't work. Well no, actually it will work - but not as a service that proclaims "show your work to the world for free".
I've never seen the appeal of Scribd, and I'm no fan of the direction they seem to be stumbling in, but it seems a bit unfair to dismiss invitations to join a user advisory board and/or come visit them as "not much of a response".
Even if both are mere PR exercises, it's an improvement on the kind of content-free hand waving I'd expect from a company desperately seeking profitability.
Exactly. How can he call this "not much of a response?" As you pointed out, the message said, "I'd also like to extend an open invitation for you to come in and meet the team." To me, that sounds like a free trip to give direct user feedback and have a real chance to make a positive change.
Instead, it sounds like Mr. Goldman just wants to bitch. He feels like Scribd used him? Did he not use Scribd? At least Scribd provided value to him (as he indicated); whatever value he provided Scribd, he is now trying to destroy it with this blog post.
There was a submission on here last week: If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1684732).
I never use Scribd, and I'm not really concerned either way with how successful they are. But I'm starting to get really annoyed with everyone's sense of entitlement these days. Louis CK hit it on the nose with his remark, "How quickly the world owes him something he knew existed only ten seconds ago." (http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/video/item/56 - it's a great clip if you haven't seen it)
Well, it's "not much of a response" since it doesn't respond to his concerns. Inviting him to give further feedback is great and all, but while it acknowledged his issues with the Archive paywall (just by saying they could tune it -- not with a concrete solution), it completely ignored his privacy complaint about broadcasting reading activity.
Basically, it was a response, but "not much" of one.
Guys: you could write your next software for people like this gentleman, or you could write it for a 50 year old woman who pays money for software and services. Choose wisely.
Indeed. I also thought the following comment from Scribd showed what is wrong with their mindset:
Umm, surely as a company you are trying to do more than cover your running costs? Or are the saying "As a start-up" profitability is irrelevant and all they care about is covering their costs whilst increasing their market share? A larger share in a market no-one is actually willing to pay for is not worth more than a smaller one, what with them both being worth nothing and all.As a start-up, we're constantly trying to strike the right balance: building products that people love but that also help us make money (to cover server cost and everything else associated with running a company).A lot of people have these things they call lifestyle businesses: if they're meeting payroll and expenses, and loving what they do for a living, they've 100% satisfied their goals.
I'm not sure that's what is going on in Scribd's case, though.
Well said. This morale of this story is in line with an old adage - Nothing goes for nothing.
When you don't pay for a service, you shouldn't expect anything in return. A guarantee of perpetual free access has to be paid for somehow and if they are not making money from ads presumably because nobody's seeing or clicking on them, then all bets are off!
You get what you pay for. Next time look for a price tag.
Except that, historically, the internet has been all about getting something for nothing. This is why were using complex modern web browsers for free to view a site that doesn't charge us.
Also, Scribd would be nothing without the thousands of hours people have spent uploading content without charging Scribd. The situation isn't as clear cut as you make out.
This reminds me of chi.mp. I recently suspected that my Gmail was hacked, so I clicked maniacally to get to the page where I could reset my password.
I discover that my chi.mp account is the back-up e-mail, which is great; the service lets me decide which e-mail address to forward to.
I go to chi.mp, think for a minute to remember my password, and get to the e-mail-forwarding screen. The account is set to forward to an e-mail address that is inconvenient (I can't remember the reason), so I remove the forwarding I've set up and---
"Something, something, you need a Pro account to create a forwarding address."
What the hell is a Pro account, I think to myself, a thought that is quickly eclipsed by the fact that a) The guys screwed me over without telling me, and b) I have no way of saving my e-mail account from a potential invader, unless I pay these <expletive>s.
I have yet to e-mail them and give them shit for it, but I didn't want to let it ruin my week, but I'll be sure to contact them when I can muster the time and energy.
HopToadApp.com did the same to me. About a year ago, I signed up for their free plan. It allowed two users, so I added our lead engineer.
Recently, he left and we added another engineer. So I removed engineer #1 and couldn't add engineer #2 unless I paid to upgrade the account. I don't mind paying when it makes sense, but a) HopToad was totally unwilling to grandfather the account, which meant I couldn't add the new engineer, and b) there was no messaging that the plan changed. I found out about it when I tried to add engineer #2. Lame.
Sometimes, when reading pieces like this, I think it is time that we as internet users reach a certain point in our understanding of entitlement. There are so many services we readily use, most free of charge, while some of them provide a huge service to us. Some even make us money. But if the service providers themselves try to validate their business by making money out of it in some way, we start bitching...
I do not especially condone what Scribd is doing here, nor can I say I would have anticipated that behaviour (harvesting interesting content and subsequently making the whole service pay-only is not the dumbest thing ever), but if you take a second when you first start using a service and try to think about the fact that they some day will have to make money, you should be able to get some conclusions. What options does the provider of the service have to make money at all? Which of these options would be ok for me? Which would piss me off badly? And how do I avoid being in a trap like the OP?
If one thinks about those questions instead of just feeling entitled to use a service, which might be "free" at the moment, the awakening should not be to abrupt.
I would flip that around on you: I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch.
The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site. If they wouldn't pay for it on day 1, the odds are they won't pay for it after 2 years of using the service. If, in the process of trying to monetize your service, you "hold hostage" a portion of the value that the user has contributed to your site, they are going to be pissed.
This has all happened many times now. I think companies trying this route in the first place will be easier to change than peoples' reaction to it.
> I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch.
For real. This always reminds me of the dude who tries to be friends with the girl so he can eventually date her, instead of simply asking her out, and risking the 'No' like a man.
Slimy.
It's also the wrong way to go about because once you end up on the friends ladder it's almost impossible to cross the abyss. ;)
I would flip that around on you: I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch.
i agree.
The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site.
i disagree. many users may not pay on the first day because they don't see the value in it, or don't understand how the site works. but being able to use it for free and coming to depend on it may put a higher value on it over time.
how many users would pay $1 per month to access facebook now that all of their friends are on it and they use it every day? probably a lot. those users probably wouldn't have signed up for an account in the first place if they had to enter a credit card number.
Maybe. But on the other hand, they've provided me their service for free for several years now and putting it behind a pay-wall would effectively be holding my social network hostage.
Not only do I value Facebook's service at less than $1/mo, but I'd be highly resentful of the switch, especially if I percieved it as a money grab or network lock-in attempt, instead of a reflection of their increasing costs (which could still be problematic if I knew they were wasting lots of money).
"The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site. "
Yes it will. If that user uses your service every day, over time, it will be more valuable to them. Most services also don't just stay the same over time. More features are added and bugs are fixed, which adds to the value.
"If they wouldn't pay for it on day 1, the odds are they won't pay for it after 2 years of using the service."
If you never gave them the option of paying in the first place, how do you know?
"I think companies trying this route in the first place will be easier to change than peoples' reaction to it."
The answer is to not have free services in the first place. Many companies have tried the freemium model and then realize that it can't scale (IE: the costs to support this free user base out weighs the benefits).
any companies have tried the freemium model and then realize that it can't scale (IE: the costs to support this free user base out weighs the benefits).
It has scaled wonderfully for Evernote:
"From the start, Libin modeled Evernote to be profitable at a 1% conversion rate ... Right now, roughly 2% of all Evernoters are premium customers ... Libin wants to maintain that rate at 5% or less. If people start converting en masse, 'that means our free product isn't good enough,' he says."
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/147/next-tech-remember-t...
"It has scaled wonderfully for Evernote:"
This is the exception rather than the rule.
I want to give Scribd the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see this as malicious as much as a business decisions that was misinterpreted.
It was probably something like this: People upload a lot of stuff to their service. Once content goes "stale" no one is viewing it anymore, but they are still storing it. They decided they could either remove the material to make room for new stuff or monetize the old material in a way that justified keeping it around.
The cost of storage is pretty low so maybe I'm reaching a bit here on their behalf. I have no idea what sort of scale they are at. Perhaps I just like to believe that people aren't trying to be evil.
That argument's not self-consistent, though. If people are still viewing the "stale" content, then what makes it stale? If people aren't viewing the content, then how can they recoup any costs by putting it behind a paywall?
"The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site."
I disagree, at least in one specific case. A new dating site doesn't have enough of a userbase of the gender that I am interested in for me to signup and pay a monthly fee. If they successfully complete their marketing play, I will gladly sign up.
While I generally agree with your points, I don't think they are particularly apt to this article. The guy isn't saying Scribd owes him anything, he even states that he understands they never promised him a free service in perpetuity.
But when you make a service available for free and take pride in that fact, harvest your users content, and then suddenly flip over to a paid service without even giving your users adequate notice or tools to opt out I can completely understand how users might feel cheated.
Isn't the company partly responsible for creating the sense of entitlement you're talking about?
I totally agree with you that it is understandable to feel cheated in this occasion. Changing the model without saying so clearly is just bad communication (see the posterous link fiasco). But nevertheless I feel that a company does not have to explicitly state the fact that they are somehow aspiring to make money with their product, that is a given. So as a user I cannot be too shocked when somecorp starts to make money.
It's not that they're trying to make money. It's how they're trying to make money. At the start of the blog post, it sounds like the author was satisfied with scribd. I'd be willing to bet that he'd have been willing to pay them money had they approached him in the correct way.
The worst case outcome of this (which I think is useful to mention, but maybe it is obvious) is when another company manages to think through all of that and "succeeds": figuring out how to monetize their product in a way that actually seems like a fair value proposition to all parties if you think through this, but instead totally fails because there is some website offering the same service "for free". If users cared enough to think through the business models of the companies involved, they'd realize how doomed the second company's model is, where the best case scenario is that one day they log in and they've pulled a Scibd, and that they should probably not be willing to use a free service, but instead they just go with it, get angry when it either collapses or starts monetizing, and them glom on to whatever the next "for free" version is. :(
Getting a bunch of people to give your free service content and then suddenly changing policy so that you can charge for that submitted content always felt pretty sleazy to me.
Kind of like raising a bunch of money for starving orphans and then buying yourself a yacht.
I have content hosted there too and value the "open access" spirit, but would also like to see Scribd develop a viable business model. An alternative is the service will close down and everything -- both free and archived -- will go away.
Another question: Besides an archive paywall, what else could the company do to build revenue (such as professional services, print-on-demand, etc.)
> I have content hosted there too
Can you please or anybody else explain me why you see any added value of scribd at all? I see it only as an annoyance. If I'd like to read a pdf I'd prefer to click on the link and read it, not to go to some suspicious site which demands from me to sign up there only to do what otherwise would be one single click.
As far as I know the only "advantage" of the service was to make content infringement easier (a site for documents which is like youtube was for videos), and that the site owners expect people to pay for access to it is hardly surprising. But I like other mechanisms more.
My suggestion for everybody who is the owner of his own documents and wants to upload them: host them as the normal files on the normal sites, unless you do want people to pay for access to them.
I don't use it myself, but reasons people I know have used it:
1. They don't have webspace and want to put a PDF somewhere online.
2. They do have webspace, but are worried, possibly unnecessarily, that it'll cost them too much money if they send out a link to a big PDF to a large-ish mailing list.
3. For Mac users, where PDFs don't load in a plugin in the browser by default, they want to be able to link to a PDF that opens in the browser instead of popping up an external viewer.
4. And, yes: They have a PDF that is at best gray-area which they want to distribute without hosting it themselves, like a scan of a book chapter for a reading group.
>3. For Mac users, where PDFs don't load in a plugin in the browser by default, they want to be able to link to a PDF that opens in the browser instead of popping up an external viewer.
FYI, PDFs absolutely load in the browser by default.
Hmm, is that only for Safari? On my OSX machine, Firefox pops up PDFs in an external instance of Preview by default. Presumably I could install the Acrobat plugin, but it doesn't seem to come with it, or to be able to find one already installed on the system. But if Safari does show them inline, then I agree I was wrong about the "default" behavior, since Safari is the default browser.
Better: use this plugin: http://code.google.com/p/firefox-mac-pdf/
It uses the native Quartz PDFKit backend.
Hilariously, the official Acrobat plugin now only works in Safari on OS X — the only browser that absolutely does not need it. I think the change happened during the Intel transition, so you can't easily use an old version either.
Firefox on the Mac is a decidedly second-class experience. I still use it from time-to-time because of extensions, but Chrome, and especially Safari, are far more pleasant out-of-the-box experiences.
There are several reasons why I use it:
- I can post papers or other documents that other people might value but not otherwise be available, such as court docs, academic papers, etc.
- I can embed the documents easily in my blogs (and before at the publication I worked at)
- I don't have to worry about hosting. I could easily upload the PDFs to the Web server my school grants me, but after I graduate, it's gone, and I have to find another solution and change the links.
Post "papers of other documents": You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)? Unless you don't have the right to distribute the documents, they will remain there.
Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you.
Hosting: See the first paragraph.
OK, anybody knows some better reason?
The best reason is really so that people who are not that computer literate, that is most people, like a student who does not know much about computers, but has a file that he owns to share, he can put it on there.
If someone is literate sufficiently with the internet to know how easy is to get hosting, and how cheap, then really there is no reason.
This is the fundemental fail of scibd and why ive written them off from the start.
their value depends on users being ignorant.
Actually a lot of very successful products bet on users being lazy, and a lot of very profitable industries intentionally keep the customers as ignorant as possible.
Both assumptions are common and valid business strategies.
> You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)?
To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.
I see jasonlotito, you write about the main article author. As far as I understood, he tried to use the free university hosting but it was for him "cumbersome" to upload there and to follow the stats. His added values were only easier upload and easier following of the number of "reads."
Note however that he does "self publishing" experiment. Enough readers here would be able to make him one click upload script in less than 10 minutes. Ditto for parsing the logs. I don't feel sorry for him for choosing scribd and feeling how he feels now.
He was also concerned that after leaving the university, they would take down the docs, and the links to them would then be broken.
I'm just wondering how the suggestion to use Google Sites or another free service is any different then using Scribd?
Google Sites won't forbid you the access once you're not on your university.
For case of stopping providing the services, take as the example Geocites -- it took a decade for them to stop hosting, and the only victim were the long forgotten and deserted pages. On another side, there is still content I uploaded on Tripod at least ten years ago, for which I forgot my passwords years ago.
If years of free hosting are not enough for you, then you have to pay for the hosting and have a bit more control. But even the hosting site to which you pay can go out of business. Nothing is forever, you just have to maintain your online content if you want to have control over it.
I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd. I admit I don't know why most users use it.
With enough ideas or usage scenarios, maybe somebody will make something better!
First, the advantages for people were already described. Scribd provided them with things that they found valuable. You dismissed these things because they weren't valuable for you. When you say:
> I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd.
You really mean "I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd for me." If you meant what you originally said, your being purposefully obtuse.
Indeed, in rereading you original comment, you were simply dismissive, and all the alternatives you provided lacked the specific feature sets he was looking for.
> With enough ideas or usage scenarios, maybe somebody will make something better!
Yeah, another document host. Scribd2.
The rest of my line that you omitted when quoting the start of it was:
"I admit I don't know why most users use it."
Note: most users. If you can't answer, please restrain from trying to make a conflict. The responses like "embed," or "ease of upload," or "read statistics" are actually useful! I'd really like more of such answers, but your answer is both unusable and insulting. When I commented on some of the features mentioned it's only because I want to hear something "yes feature A is easy but there is also the advantage B" etc.
The argument that you can post to scribd and worry less that it will become inaccessible compared to when you upload it to some other site is what scribd themselves already proved to be false.
There are two things going on. Either you are a not a native English speaker, in which case, I can assume you've misunderstood something I've said, or your are trolling. I'll assume the former.
Within the context of this thread, you initially responded to a post, and, whether intending to or not, you dismissed his reasons for liking Scribd. ilamont gave you three reasons. For example, embedding was one answer. In your immediate reply to my last post, you said:
> The responses like "embed," or "ease of upload," or "read statistics" are actually useful!
However, in your reply to ilamont, you said:
> Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you.
Now, maybe your intention wasn't to be dismissive. Unfortunately, what you said here is dismissive. So, forgive me if I seem like I'm trying to 'make a conflict', but going by your replies, you did seem to start off that way.
Next, you originally said:
> You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)?
This was again in response to ilamont.
My reply, which basically was in response to this particular part, was
> To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.
This was in response to your comment regarding ilamont, as well as the original poster, and encompassed both users. Basically, that Scribd provided both of these people with features they liked, and features you were seemed to dismiss as unimportant.
Anyways, my remark was merely to state that they did, in fact, use a free service to upload their documents too. Your suggestion of using another free service is missing the point: they had already done that. It's fairly circular: A free hosting service did something you don't like? Maybe you should have tried a free hosting service.
Our replies quickly degenerated until we reach now, where you are assuming I'm trying to create a conflict. I assure you, I am not.
Now, I want to address this:
> The argument that you can post to scribd and worry less that it will become inaccessible compared to when you upload it to some other site is what scribd themselves already proved to be false.
In hindsight this is true. However, prior to this "proof", it wasn't true.
And maybe this is where our confusion came about. I was speaking within the context of the original poster, as well as the parent commenter. It seemed you were only looking forward, though, this wasn't far from clear in your original reply.
Regardless, it's a silly debate. I apologize if I seemed to be trying to start and argument with you. That was not my intention. However, what you said doesn't follow logically. I can only assume this is because what you wrote and what you meant aren't the same. I blame the internet, and it's failings to communicate effectively.
That being said, if you are a native born English speaker, you're probably nothing more than an obtuse troll.
> It's fairly circular: A free hosting service did something you don't like? Maybe you should have tried a free hosting service.
What you failed to recognize was that the nature of the scribd service and the web hosting services I suggested was always fundamentally different and that was visible even then when you claim that they were "the same."
There's no free web hosting service that demands visitors to register to deliver them the web content(!) Scribd always immediately made your original material inaccessible and counted on visitors to sign up just to deliver it to them! So scribd was so obviously worse from the start. After the current development everybody sees that (you write "In hindsight this is true. However, prior to this "proof", it wasn't true.") but even if you wasn't able to see the difference "in context of the original poster" that doesn't give you the rights to behave how you did.
I don't blame the interent, I blame you for making insults instead of trying to argument, but I still won't call you names, even if you deserve it for continuing to do what you do in the post I reply. No, I am not the native speaker but I still believe that's irrelevant to your bad behavior, except if you claim that subtle hints to somebody not being native speaker additionally annoy you, that still doesn't show you in better light.
One idea: host a simple document conversion service. Pay money, upload a PDF, download an HTML5 page. Lots of documents on the web are better hosted on the creator's servers, like restaurant menus and research papers. I see they have an embeddable API, but (A) they don't push it very hard, and (B) it has a higher barrier to entry than just downloading a webpage.
Another idea: Cut out the middleman and sell a "print to webpage" plugin for Windows.
If people put the documents available for download for free, I think they should be left that way, no one likes someone else to makes actions for them without their knowledge.
Everybody is surprised when someone tells him "Why have you made the document available for download only via purchase?"
If they don't fix this thing soon I'll stop using Scribd completely.
Also, a really funny sentence in the response from Scribd:
> You’re right that our communication around the Archive should have been more clear.
It sounds like, yeah, we know, but we like it this way for now.
In the time it took him to write his rant, he could have clicked the checkbox to make all of his old content available for free again.
When you use a free service, you have to expect them to need to make money somehow--and that means you should expect them to try changing the mix of what is free and what is paid now and then, and changing defaults. Accordingly, you should expect that on occasion you might have to change settings in order to get the thing to work the way you like.
I feel that the main issue is the lack of open and direct communication with the users.
Sure, making the paywall opt-in by default increases conversions. But you still have to tell the user about it rather have them discover one day that a lot of their documents are no longer being read. That sucks.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback and comments, Scribd just announced they are making changes: http://blog.scribd.com/2010/09/21/the-scribd-archive-an-apol...
People still don't understand all of the things they are agreeing to on sites like this:
Scribd Creator Terms Of Service http://ipadtest.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/scribd-creator-term...
Seriously? Do you really read the entire terms of service every time you sign up for a new service? Besides that, just because you have the legal right to do something to your customers doesn't mean it's a good idea. I mean, did you realize that most stores aren't obligated to take back returns? And yet, the biggest company in the world (Wal Mart) is very well-known for taking back anything. There have even been cases of people bringing back diapers claiming they were all used beforehand.
When it comes to TOS dealing with writing and publishing, yes, I do indeed read the entire TOS. When you go get a job, do you inquire into the terms and conditions?
A whole pile of data on scribd was never uploaded by the original owners though, but by people posting links to pdfs to sites like HN.
Can anybody please tell me why does HN actively support such a site?
Because YC invested in it.
I don't doubt there's piracy or unofficial uploading. But Scribd has also made a push to get self-published writers. And they miss the point someone downvoted.
This reminds me of what happened at the end of the dot com bubble, where the hasty erection of a paywall usually meant that the death of a site was imminent, and users often did feel "tricked and trapped" or that their community relationships had been violated.
That's not realistic at all. If Facebook really did that to your car, they wouldn't leave the note.
This kind of service is just another "Brill's content" type scam.
if anything is "free", YOU are the product sold.
"readcasting" sounds like an excellent SEO siloing play. Lots of inter-related internal links. Good google-fu.
I've encountered a few documents that were 1 page application forms for community resources, and all were shocked when those were suddenly behind a rather expensive paywall. I also was really annoyed the first time I noticed some obscure document I read was broadcast to all my "followers." That means I've encountered both of these major beefs myself. I was never a scribd user, but I sure as hell would never use them now. This is not an issue of not charging early - it's expertsexchange all over again.
That paywall pays for hosting, the platform and the tools that guy used--not to mention the fact that it also pays for hundreds of jobs and fuels the entrepreneurial economy. If that causes a benign blogger to add the service to his or her shitlist, then I think Scribd will live on.
Did you try contacting them to clarify ? If so, what was their response ?
He did. From the post:
As a courtesy, I sent a prepublication draft of the above post to Scribd's press team and asked for a response. They were kind enough to reply to me pretty quickly with the following