That is very good news! I hope it works out better than all expectations for all of you.

Could any/some/all of us ever come together and create something that was TWoPpian, but (Buffista) better?

Yes, this is craven, but not only. My husband is a network engineer. I've thought of doing this on my own. Then I've thought of us doing it together and have gotten much happier. Is anyone interested? I know we have writers, techies, editors, accountants, etc., here. I think -- if we build it, they would come.

If you respond and then don't hear from me, please poke me on FB, Twitter, or in email.

I would think a certain part of it would be a monetary issue--both in terms of paying for the site, and paying for the time of the people working on it. Would ad revenue really cover that? I know b.org a lot of folks pitch in cash when they've got it or when Jesse says we need it, and ita and others have put in lots and lots of unpaid (though much appreciated!) time when there's issues.

Meara, I think you're mostly right. I also think there's a hole there, especially now that TWoP is gone. We wouldn't soon earn money, but I think we might over the long run.

I think there's a difference between enough revenue to run a site and pay people and the kind of ROI that NBCU was looking for. Recappers like you already have a following, so you'd have a head start.

Ginger, you're right. To my knowledge, TWoP never lost money. My expectation is that we didn't earn ENOUGH.

That said, I keep thinking this crew here could earn enough for enough. Maybe I'm wrong. I keep thinking that together, we'd be good enough.

I'd be happy to write anything anyone would want me to, and promote it as well as I'm able, but I couldn't put any money into. So ... that's my answer.

I also think that recaps have caught on hugely, and there aren't a lot of sites without them anymore, so to do it well, the site would probably have to offer something additional, and fresh, and unique.

Our prettiness?

Question for freelancers and those hiring them: Is it bad form for a project manager or client to ask for "hours to complete" on tasks for a fixed-bid project already in progress?

I'm on both sides of this and it makes me uncomfortable in both cases. In brief, I was recently asked by a regular quarterly client to start reporting time spent. Also, on a project where I'm managing the content, the PM just asked everyone on the team I'm managing to do this. In both cases, it is for "planning purposes."

In the case of my big project, I know that's true, but I don't see how asking for this info helps us plan -- we don't know what other commitments people have, so how does this really help? Shouldn't we ask something like "How quickly could you turn around X?" or "How many assignments could you handle a week?"

I prefer working bids, not hourly, precisely because I'm quick and can earn a better living that way. Also, I hate tracking my time. I do it for hourly projects of course, and in a general sense for fixed-bids, but not precisely.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do for my regular client yet. I know some of my reaction is out of fear, like if some publishers actually knew what my hourly rate worked out to be they wouldn't be happy about paying it (even though they already do).

Am I being ridiculous? (Very possible.) But I worry because I know it pissed me off to be asked and we have finally gotten most team members of my big project in line and I don't want to piss them off in any way. I sort of feel that it's none of our business if someone gets what we want done when we want it for what we already agreed to pay them.

I don't really have a choice with regular client, though I'm debating just estimating that part of the report (as they are actually asking for time per article, which is insane and just not how I edit). But I do need to decide whether I should speak up to my PM about it or not. Again, just not sure if my sensitivity is legit.

Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated.