Re: Training events policy ... first test case - Mailing list pgsql-www

Magnus Hagander wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:472CADE4.5000807@hagander.net" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Dave Page wrote:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">------- Original Message -------
 
From: Chander Ganesan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chander@otg-nc.com"><chander@otg-nc.com></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:josh@agliodbs.com">josh@agliodbs.com</a>
Sent: 03/11/07, 16:31:33
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Training events policy ... first test case

Actually, I think that its not unusual for us to see a few enrollments 
the week before a class...  so listing classes that are "next week" is a 
good idea - i'm sure this is a trend seen by all training companies....      </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">Here's a
possiblycrazy idea - how about we remove the 3 or 4 listings from /index.html altogether and replace them with a
dynamicallygenerated summary saying something like:
 

"There are 24 training events in 9 countries scheduled over the next 6 months from OTG, EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt,
2ndQuadrant and others. View the complete schedule to find the PostgreSQL training you want."
 

The numbers are easy to calcuate of course, and we could just grab 3 or 4 company names randomly.
</pre></blockquote><prewrap="">
 
I like it. Takes away the whole problem, really. So +1 from me.
 </pre></blockquote> I've got mixed feelings about it, for a few reasons:<br /><br /> - The problem, as I see it, is
reallyin culling from the list those companies that post training events to achieve one of the following:<br />     A. 
Gain"front page" status by posting events they have no intention of running (this definitely addresses that).<br />    
B. Gan "overwhelming odds" status by listing a whole lots of events, the majority of which they never intend to run.  I
knowof a number of different training companies (not all of which offer PostgreSQL training) that do the following:<br
/>       - List courses in many cities at once for lead generation.<br />        - Follow up with those leads by
"consolidating"them into a single class they run in a single city.<br /><br /> Consider that when you advertise on
Googleif you have three impressions per page (say 2 natural search results and a single paid result) your leads
actuallygo up by more than a factor of three...the more impressions the better results, and the response is
non-linear. <br /><br /> The same thing occurs with the PG training page.  Legitimate providers are unable to compete
aseffectively because they list courses they intend to run...and not a mashup of courses designed to generate leads.<br
/><br/> The proposal drives people to look at a training page, and limits those "front page" impressions.  However it
doesnot address the fact that when someone goes to the training page they have to somehow sift through an immense
amountof courses, many of which may not run, and many of which are designed for lead generation, rather than to drive
enrollmentin a single class.<br /><br /> The question is really, how do you weed out the legitimate courses from the
not-so-legitimateones?  I think that there isn't a really "good" way, and hence some sort of restriction...  Some
ideas:<br/><br /> - Have training providers provide the name of their instructors and a few references, then limit them
toposting courses that those instructors would be able to teach (and an instructor can't be in two places at once). 
Thishowever placed an undue burden on PGDG, since now you have to weed out instructors.<br /> - Have providers pay a
non-trivialadministrative fee to list a course ($1000 per course listing?) .  A small fee would be a license to ill, a
largerfee however would serve as a deterrent (and the fee is a donation..).  This however places an undue burden on
smallercompanies or companies that are venturing into this area and thus stymies growth.<b><br /> - Have providers pay
anon-trivial fee for each course over the 8 per year free listings.  Say 8 free listings per year, others are $1000
apiece. This would allow EDB's and OTG's to legitimately list courses they intend to offer, and prevent "spam" type
postings.</b><br/><br /> My guess is that those folks that aren't legitimate will probably start to drop off when they
findthe cost of using bait and switch techniques becomes unfeasible.<br /><br /> 8 a month works even better for those
growingcompanies.  They can offer lots of courses at the start of the year (back to back, whatever) and if they are
successfulthey can pay the fee to continue the practice later in the year.<br /><br /> I like the third one, it allows
forcommunity growth, and the regular courses offered by BNR, Modern, and others.  If a company really plans to offer
30+courses a year and run them, I'm sure that they wouldn't mind paying a bit extra...especially considering they are
"cleaningup" running all those courses with the large frequency.<br /><br /> In general, people, once they enroll or
arein contact with a single vendor, don't go out of their way to search for something else unless their experience
(takinga crappy course) drives them elsewhere.  If I have someone enroll and tell them that they have to wait until
nextmonth, or fly to some other city for the course, they won't be happy...but more times than not they will most
likelydo it...since it saves them the work of looking elsewhere for training.  It's a sad thing to say, but I think its
thetruth.  An example for us was a Sony subdivision company.  They went somewhere else for training and absolutely
hatedit...their training was someone with some unix admin experience, but almost no PG experience.  Their course was
originallyscheduled in the LA area, but they ended up having to fly to a different city for the course.  At the time,
theywere even reluctant to provide the name of the company, since they were considering pursuing legal action to get
theirmoney back<br /><br /> When they looked to train other staff they called and gave us the third degree, asked for
references,asked technical questions, asked about experience, etc.  I think if customers did that right off the bat,
thewhole training industry would be a lot smaller....  <br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
 
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.otg-nc.com">http://www.otg-nc.com</a>
</pre>