New IPVM Research Vs Old IPVM Testing - Here's What's Much Better

I think the new tests are going well. The only downside I have seen is there is less conversions in the "research" posts. Not sure how that can be addressed.

Several thoughts here, not in any level of importance.

If you look at the “repositional multi-imager” research you can see there are 4 comments on what should be an interesting piece to the general membership. 1 from John, 1 from Ethan and 2 from Michael.

I wonder how many of the 2020 Top Posters are Research Members? Are they posting more or less on Info+ articles? Are they posting on Research?

Maybe people who post want the larger audience. Whisper to a grand audience versus yell to a small one?

One suggestion would be to make the Research articles into Info+ at 12 months. This would still add value for those needing the competitive info and yet open for a larger discussion to gauge overall interest at a later date.

Too confusing. I read all my articles already, don't remember what they were and now can't read anymore until?? From what I recall the articles went deeper than needed to foster my opinion on such subject and found myself getting sidetracked and probably the cause of not knowing what I used my ticket on...

I can't tell what or why something is info+ or research other than when it's labeled.

IPVM gained it's popularity and rise to fame on community sourced comment content. Much of your exploits and deeper dives we're founded on subscriber comments. This new pricing change aims to collect those comments in the lower tiers and exploit them in the higher tiers at different, ungrouped unrelatable timings.

I'm all for IPVM being a profitable and worthwhile resource don't get me wrong, charge accordingly but I think this pricing model setup is bad for business. I would rather pay more for everything without the hassles. That said I don't want a plan or cost tailored to me, I want the commentary of the masses and that means affordable access for all.