When I read of your plans, I instantly thought of the Clark Community Network, part of Wes Clark's PAC website. Users create an account there and are able to post to their own blogs and write comments on others. The site does a good job of highlighting "Best Posts" from around the community, as well as integrating everything together (unlike a publishing tool like Blogger).

That said, I would *not* like to see Salon become a community site. If you want interactivity, here are a couple suggestions:

- A book club. Salon is wonderful at selecting great reads. I'd love to see a monthly selection followed by a scheduled chat with the author or another expert on the subject. Or, failing that, post a book review every month and have a link to a message board discussion about it underneath.

- Rather than allow members to create their own blogs and publish content, develop another Salon blog featuring *Salon* talent in a manner similar to Broadsheet. Maybe a food/cooking blog for the health conscious, or a yoga/meditation/poetry blog. A place for daily inspiration.

- Ditch FirstCupid Personals as soon as you can. Read around the net; that company has gone downhill since the takeover and rebranding. Maybe you could develop your own dating site and integrate it (usernames and all) with the rest of the site. Perhaps that's a little too ambitious.

Mainly, though, I think you should stay focused on *content*. I'd like to see more arts coverage as others have suggested (think TNR's piece about MoMA last week), but also more apolitical coverage in general. As far as I can tell, the Tech/Business section consists of an "Ask the Pilot" feature.

Thank you for listening.

David Talbot, where are you?

And tell us, please. Be a little transparent. Be INTERACTIVE. You've heard the howls. What has happened to the subscriber base since...that day? Because if it's a big FU to the Premium subscribers in favor of twittely precious ad-driven drivel, then I think we have a right to know. And throw the finger right back at you.

As a Salon reader from the early early days, I'm not really interested in seeing Salon implement "more interactivity" as described above or hinted at in the survey. If I want to seek a variety of unedited writings, opinions, video, photos etc....I have the whole web. I get the concept, that the "intelligence" and "insight" of this particular reader base might create a a vibrant forum, but I look to Salon for *edited* content and would prefer to see Salon's resources directed to improving and expanding what's already here.

Two suggestions:

1 - I agree with the couple of letters here requesting better coverage of the arts. Slate has recently increased its coverage of the visual arts - a topic missing from Salon. It would be great to see an occasional interview, review or even an arts blog along the lines of How the World Works, War Room or Broadsheet. You're in San Francisco - talk to the new internationally based administration at SFAI and get a collaboration going. And since there is a natural alignment between the politics of the art crowd and Salon, better coverage of the arts might even result in a few more subscriptions.

2 - Improve your letters interface. Granted this is only the second letter I've written, but as a premium subscriber it would be nice if I could save a letter in process and return to it later in the day. That alone would be one big step in facilitating the already interesting interaction with readers that occurs here.

I agree with some others: something has changed at Salon, and not for the better.

I remember when Salon first started requiring payment, I was annoyed. I resisted subscribing. Then I thought about the quality of what I was reading, how edgy and in-depth the stories were, how different from other sources. I plunked down the money.

I recall smiling at this simplistic comparison: The headlines and teasers on the right side of the screen (the Salon content), compared to the headlines/teasers on the left (from the AP Wire, which also appear on every other online news site). Even at the headline level, the Salon content was always more substantive. Reading its stories was even better: informative, thought-provoking, sometimes maddening, but usually well-done and worth paying for.

Fast forward... to now.

Currently showing on the AP Wire(left), the Top 5: IAEA Reports Iran to Security Council; National Guard Plan; Gonzales' History of Supporting Bush; The Haiti Elections. And one fluff story: Courtney Love says she's off drugs. 4 out of 5 ain't bad. The only problem is that I know the AP wire stories have little substance, basically reporting facts with no context or analysis. This is why I (used to) turn to Salon for more.

But what do I find from Salon? Here's its Top 5: "I Like to Watch" (Flavor Flav, Jeff Probst, et. al., about how to find the perfect man), "Refuge in Bleak House" on Masterpiece Theater, "Video Dog" ("Brokeback Mountain" and bad sitcoms), "Ask the Pilot" (interesting/unusual but not top-bill material), and one potentially substantive story: "Talkin' bout my generation," looking at the after-baby-boom generation.

I look up to the "sections" links, and see A&E, Books, Comics, Community, Life, News & Politics, Opinion, Sports, Tech & Business, Letters. Why does this sound like I'm reading "USA Today?" (No, that's not a compliment!) If we're changing or adding categories, why not "philosophy", "science", "religion" -- something I'd never see anywhere else?

While Salon talks out one side of its mouth about valuing input from its users, more and more of its content reflects and imitates the mass-media world in which readers/viewers/consumers are valued simply as receptive eyeballs for advertising. Could it be that the "advertising" mode of Salon access is driving its content more than the subscription side? That's what it looks like to me.

So, yes; I'm ALL FOR an interactive and user-oriented Salon. That means making a choice in favor of Salon's subscriber-supported userbase. It means treating your users like intellectuals and giving them content worthy of their potential investment. It means recognizing that each and every subscriber gives you money because we want something different than what we could find elsewhere.