>>>>>>I believe, IIRC, that your initial version showed who viewed the message. And I remember that some expressed concern about privacy issue; which makes sense. I think what Matt is saying is to show how many times a message has been viewed without showing the names or IDs. This would not invade any body's privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would have to add this one into the next survey. lol
>>>>
>>>>You know, you make a good point about making sure not to upset some people. I can even see now (without naming names *g*) that some will raise issue that their messages are not viewed as often as some others.
>>>
>>>I wonder if anyone has any idea what the point of this is. I wondered what people would use this information for in a previous post, but I never got an answer from anyone - not even Matt who suggested it in the first place.
>>>
>>>If there's no advertising revenue, then who cares.
>>
>>I care that there is no advertising. At least not anything that would try to dance around my AdBlock+. I have a near zero tolerance policy on paying twice, and if it has ads, it was paid once already. So... we have canceled cable.
>
>A man of principle! A man who is missing some good shows, but a man of principle nonetheless ;-)
>
>Not sure I follow your point about paying twice, though. Advertisers pay for the ads. You pay for your subscription. (Well, you used to). Together these comprise the revenue of the networks and cable providers. Is there some rule now against businesses having more than one source of revenue?

Very near to what I was going to say. The ads pay the networks for the shows. The subscriptions pay for the cable company distribution. The cable companies and the networks are not the same thing. Dragan, do you go around naked because the material for your clothes is already paid for by the manufacturer and then they have the nerve to turn around and charge you for the product when you want to buy it?