why so few members?

I'm amazed by how few members there are here. I just posted a photo

and 10 out of 10 reviewers were not members. Pretty sad showing.

 

I tried the site out for a while before joining. There were a few

things I didn't like, and there still are. But Photo.Net has

provided me with incredible amounts of information, valuable feedback

on my photos, and a good measure of entertainment. All for 25

bucks!

 

I don't mean to be insensitive to those people who are not in a

position to contribute. I've been there myself. But there are a lot

of people who can afford a camera and a computer and have a few bucks

to spare who really should consider contributing.

 

I don't think anyone who has posted for critique more than a handful

of images should carry on without ponying up.

 

What's your view of the member/freeloader issue?

 

Mac

We don't really like to use the term "freeloader"...

 

Actually this is a pay for use site. We allow users a free trial period, but it says somewhere (and I don't remember exactly where!)that users who continue to use the site are expected to subscribe. Right now this isn't enforced, but who knows what may happen in the future...

 

Many users rationalize their lack of subscription by taking the attitude that they'll subscribe when.... When includes such things as "when all access problems are fixed", or "when only those with images are allowed to rate other images" or "when there's a forum for left handed Leica users". There's always a good excuse if you look hard enough for one.

From my perspective, I believe that expectations (mine) shift somewhat from

"freeloading" to paying - with an expectation of service.

<p>

Reliable access is not part of a subscription of photo.net for all intents and purposes.

<p>

Just an observation - data loss and unreliable service are not great advertisements for

subscription.

I'm unemployed and my car broke bown last week and I may have to sell my computer just to pay for that.

What�s more aggravating than the site not working adequately is the same ol� �shut up or pay up� mantra from the management every time someone points out a glitch.

 

Don�t expect everyone to fork over $25 as long as the site performance remains low, even after the generous donation of thousands of dollars by one user.

 

Just pull non-subscribers privilege to post photos and delete their galleries to free up some resources and stop with all the veil threats to pull the plug on those that don�t contribute. But to ban access to the information provided freely by other photographers for several years would probably send the site to the toilet.

 

From a business perspective, the management would have a lot of explaining to do to the stockholders besides constant excuses of why something is not working properly.

 

Get a grip on the problems, stabilize the site and then you�ll be on better footing to solicit money from non-subscribers.

 

Were I a subscriber, I would want a refund by now.

 

No, Thankfully I�m not poor. Yes, I could pay. No, I won�t pay until the site performance improves to justify the $25.

I became a member because I had gained so much from photo.net that I felt I guilty for freeloading for too long. I think nothing of buying a crap photo magazine occassionally or buying some inexpensive photoshop action that usually does less than what I had hoped for, but somehow, the place I turned to for in depth learning about so many different issues, photo.net, I took for granted.

 

I think in retrospect, there should be tiered services. I think keeping photo.net free for reading and posting questions should remain free as there are other free sites which photo.net competes against. It's a good draw and an excellent public service resource. But some of the other services like ratings/comments on photos, and anything photo related like galleries, and I believe, W/NW postings should be for subscribers only.

Kenny,

 

I don't generally like to get in online battles with other people but I find the tone of your post rather offensive for the following reasons.

 

1) Most of the time Photo.net does work properly although there was a period when service was poor. I log on every day and your statements about the poor stability don't measure up to my experiences. No photo.net hasn't been perfectly reliable. Neither is Windows XP or OS X and I pay for those. Neither was the last new BMW I bought but I didn't expect to get it for free as a result. Hello?

 

2) You mention "constant excuses" from management. I find the people who run the site are pretty realistic and level headed. I can point to several changes recently that aren't excuses but are responses to user feedback... a) the new street/doc photog forum, b) the new W/NW forum, c) kicking out the disruptive, childish influences in the Leica forum, d) putting time and money into stabilising the infrastructure.

 

3) I wonder what "veiled threats" you're referring to to pull the plug on non-subscribers. I read a lot of what's going on here. There's definately an organic process of change going on but I can't put my finger on any veiled threats.

 

4) I wonder if you'll ever be satisfied enough to pay up. I wonder what exactly your criteria are for being "good enough".

I realize that Photo.net is not some big conglomerate with stockholders, but just someone�s hobby that eventually turned into probably the best place on the net to interact with other photographers. That is fine. I�ve used the resource from time to time myself.

 

Someone shouldn�t get sore because their photos didn�t attract paid subscribers. Maybe you should put that in your critique request, that you only want subscribers to rate your photos.

 

Now, I won�t waste anymore of your precious bandwidth. After all, I�m a non-paying lurker/freeloader. But, I bet there are a few more thousand like me out there.

Eric,

Don't waste your time wondering about when I might subcribe. Enjoy that BMW that you so eloquently dropped in with your post. I'm not impressed. Hello?

Patience is a virtue, good things come to those who wait. Sure sometimes there are small glitches, but here in N.Z we are in a different time zone from the main American base of users so are probably sleeping when the pressure is really on the site.

 

I value Photonet very much and try to contribute in any way that I can by being involved in posting pics and to various forums, etc.

 

Photonet could get plenty of subscribers if it put in place a proceedure for overseas members to subscribe by International Money

Order which is drawn on a US based Bank and as good as cash. Many members have suggested this and WHY has some simple process not been devised so we can subscribe in this manner...........Bob?

 

Many US based firms are only too pleased to accept payment from overseas customers by this method, I have purchased quite a bit of US software this way. Get your head out of the sand, Photonet management!

I was actively using PN for about a year without subscribing, and no amount of coercion from people making subtle or not-so-subtle comments about 'freeloaders' would have induced me to cough up. What did decide me was that I thought - overall - PN had done right by me, and that I could now afford to pay the cost asked (the extra quotas helped too!). My opinion is that people will pay when they're ready if they're going to pay at all, and won't ever pay if they are in a second group. I personally don't feel that I'm subsidising the second group so their presence doesn't bother me in the least. Probably forcing people to pay will cause PN more harm than good. There are people around who will decide to pay voluntarily when they don't have to. However, the site's glitches do need to be sorted out, regardless...

Sometimes as I read these posts I think of the Itchy and Scratchy show on The Simpsons: "They fight, they fight, theyfighttheyfighttheyfight, fightfightfight, fightfightfight. . . ."

Neil,

 

Dont you think the performance problems of PN could be related to a lack of resources. By this I do not necessarily mean more hardware. Do you realise that Brian Mottershead pretty much runs the technical side of PN on his own. He has a small cadre of volounteers. Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve that problem. I think in the case of PN I would help tremendously.

 

Having said that, and after reading Erin's post, one can say that part of the problem does lie with the top management of PN. Not being able to subscribe to PN due to technical reasons is absurd.

 

It is interesting to note that you finally decided to subscribe. Do you think you would have subscribed if you has not recieved an increased quota? In my opinion the photo gallery is grossly overloaded and reducing this would improve performance. I reckon 50 photos should be plenty to demonstrate a person's talent - or lack of it. Would you be willing to reduce your quota?

 

Just Curious...

 

Stuart

I was thinking the best solution would be tiered membership, say something along the lines of -

 

90 days full access free

After 90 days:

$5 per year for access to only the forums (minus photo based forums, like critique request and POW, etc)

$10 per year for full forum access

$15 per year for full forum access and the current limited portfolio

$25 per year for full access

 

And all memberships left unpaid and unused for 6 months will be deleted, including portfolios.

 

Also, you can upgrade your member ship at any time, but the upgrade is only good through the date that your current membership expires.

 

I think this would be a fair system for everyone. 90 Days is more than enough time to evaluate the site. And who could complain about $5 a year to access the wealth of information available on the site? Even the most starved student could afford that and they can easily increase their membership level when they could.

 

What does everyone think of this?

Stuart, I would possibly consider a reduction in quota - across the board of course (1 person eleting their entire portfolio won't make a scrap of difference to the performance). Since I signed up, I have also found other ways to showcase my 'talent' in addition to PN, but I would be a liar if I claimed that the number of photos allowed wasn't a factor. I do realise that Brian runs the site almost entirely on his own, but - even though I may be able to afford to pay my subscription, I'm not so rich as to be doing so in the sense of a donation: to justify the outlay, I want something in return. Stuart, surely this is not an unreasonable stance to take?

<p>

You are probably right to suggest that it is the photos which are smothering the performance now. I presume, from your question, that you would be willing to reduce <i>your</i> quota of photos?

I think it's very simple: the site costs $25. The knowledge that can be gained here would cost far more than that in terms of both time and money on books or other more traditional information sources. If you disagree, by all means your money is better spent elsewhere. But I can't imagine getting a better bang for your 25 bucks, even if the site has a few glitches.

 

But rationalize it any way you want.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that I cared one bit whether my photo was rated by members or non members. I appreciate the time anybody takes to contribute. Non-members have offered me lots of valuable feedback in the past.

 

I'm just surprised because I think that anybody who uses the site regularly for either information or for critiques of their photos gets a lot more than $25 back in return.

 

Performance issues are a problem. If most of the people who really use the site a lot contributed, we probably wouldn't have the performance problems.

 

I regret using the word freeloader. It probably turned this conversation a bit nasty.

 

Mac

Neil,

 

I certainly would reduce my quota. I currently have about 20 photos on PN. I cant see it growing much more than that. 50 would be more than enough.

 

I certainly do think you should be entitled to everything a subscriber on PN is currently entitled to. For me, personally, the beauty of PN is not the gallery but the forums but I realise this is not the same for everyone. For criticism I ask my girlfriend's brother who fortunately is a pro. I do make use of the gallery. I find it is a great way to end the day browsing through other people's entries usually with a glass of wine - or something more relaxing.

 

I hope I didn't imply in my previous post that I was questioning your quota or your ability. You have loaded some very fine photos onto PN.

 

My point of view on the subscribe/dont subscribe is based on my experience and at the moment PN is giving too much away for free. And until management redresses this, it will always be the case.

 

All the best,

 

Stuart

Mac, I don't think reducing the number of pictures stored on the site is going to make any difference, as the overhead cost for the site is bandwidth not storage, in ither words the amount of data sucked out of p.net's servers.<br>A few things have been tried including recompressing all images by default, this I am sure has save a lot of bandwidth.<br>On the point of saving bandwidth, a few ideas As I look at this pages source:<p><ul><li>Firstly this page uses inline style sheets, why not use external ones, would only need download once per session.</li><li>Same thoughts go for the javascript, externalise it.</li><li>The logo appears on every page and while it should be cached by most browsers, this is not gauranteed, changing it from a animated gif to static, would save BW over a period, considering the number of hits this site is getting.</li></ul><p>This may not seem like much of a saving, but given the fact that this site is fairly well stripped of gizmos and unnescessary clutter, it may be that over time it could save some buck$.<p><ul><li>On the photos problem we really need some efffecient, way of inssuring size constraints are not overly exceeded, ie direct camera uploads.</li><li>Limiting the number of images to a portfolio would also help (or the number of icons per page), on big portfolios you down load all the thumbs for the portfolio on one page this can be a hell of a lot of images.</li></ul>

interesting discussion. well i have something to say about 'freeloaders', please that really hurts. i think that most of us 'freeloaders' as you describe try to give to the system too. please do remember that not all the information and data on this site comes from the 'non-freeloaders' seems like we are saying that its the pros and the sponsors who are the providers here in this site. i dont think that is completely true. i will defintely subscribe to the site when i can afford it. You need to understand that its easy for people to sit in the US and UK with strong dollars and pounds and euros to pay up this 'mere' 25$, but do also understand how much it costs for a person sitting in Asia or Africa for that matter. Please dont be eye tied like a horse, look at different view points too.

 

This site is amazing and i think they are doing the right thing by asking people to contribute, people who can afford to should definitely pay up, but at the same time people who cant but are enthusiastic and here to learn and to give back to the system should not be forced either, they might have reasons for not subscribing, one simple reason being they cant afford it.

<i><blockquote> 'freeloaders', please that really hurts.... i will defintely subscribe to the

site when i can afford it.... this 'mere' 25$, but do also understand how much it costs for a

person sitting in Asia or Africa for that matter. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Didn't you say the other day that you were getting a Digital Rebel?

Just a note to those that may wish to join PN you can subscribe though Paypal a very simple process.And for those that cant afford to join I welcome you and your photos.

Awsome. Z even rates financial situations.

Perhaps when it comes to critique value, mere subscription has made a few too many experts. I have encountered my share. Full membership would make them positivly insufferable.

 

To give stronger validity to the critic system, I believe individual ratings below 1.5 and above 6.5 should require a brief summary from the critic on how their numbers were arrived at. This would at least give pause to the hasty rater. I think sniping is worse than freeloading.

David,

 

Paypal may work fine in America but not every country supports it, and some people prefer not to enter code numbers for bank accounts to the internet.

 

As I mentioned in a post above some serious consideration needs to be done on a system were payments can be made direct to PN via International Money order, in US dollars, this can easily be done from any country and is as good as a cash payment. This option would add a fair few dollars to the sites resources.