I know it has been said before...

Doug, it matters to me. Your recent work routinely receive over 10,000 views with many ratings over a short span, and the calibre of your earlier work, up to half million plus views which I would certainly consider high visibility. You also enjoy many distinct advantages over most on this site: POW, reputation, friends, respect from those who know you, credibility, intelligence, experience, and the list goes on. So instead of participating less and playing into the hands of others, why not try to beat them at their own game? <br><br>It may surprise you to know that neophytes like myself feel completely inadequate being among the likes of you, Marc and others, even when our photos reach the top page by fluke or otherwise. And I also share the suffocating experience of having to out-do myself with each subsequent upload which is becoming increasingly impossible.<br><br>Quality has a way of sorting itself out but not necessarily reflected in popular choice, but any photographer worth their salt will acknowledge your work as representative of quality, and that's something no amount of ratings or comments can buy.

<em>"There is no requirement... that the ratings be intelligent. Stupid people with no taste are just as welcome as anybody else"</em>

<p>

Well I certainly don't feel that way. I'd much rather stupid people stayed far away from photo.net and didn't post anything in the forums or the gallery.

<p>

However, in practice, there's no way to stop stupid people from participating, and there are alot of stupid people!

<p>

I'd much rather we only got intelligent, thoughfull, informed postings. However I can't figure out how to do that without extreme moderation. And, of course, extreme moderation would drive away the majority of users, then revenue would drop, photo.net couldn't pay it's ISP bills and the site would fold.

<p>

In the good old days when the site was run as a personal website/software testbed by Philip on donated equipment out of a lab at MIT, photo.net didn't have to worry about things like equipment cost and ISP charges. That's certainly no longer the case.

<p>

Could the site be run as an exclusively high quality site, with all contributions moderated? Probably not. If you want a site like that, you have to keep it small and run it as a hobby, not a business. If you're prepared to do all the work of site administration, software development, content development and moderation of member input for free and maybe pay a few thousand dollars a year out of your own pocket to do it, I'd say you could probably run a small to medium sized, high quality site on almost any subject.

<p>

My website doesn't cost much, but then there's not a huge amount of stuff there and I'm lucky if I get 1000 page hits a day. Photo.net gets 10 million!

<p>

So I think we have to suffer fools, even if we don't do it gladly. The vast majority of photo.net users aren't stupid and they aren't fools either. It's just that the few who are cause problems out of proportion to their numbers and there's an endless supply of them out there waiting to take the place of the ones we remove from the site.

<p>

Photo.net is also supposed to be a learning site, so the inexperienced are very welcome to participate. Perhaps they will learn something while they are here. Hopefully they will at least learn to ignore the stupid and ill-informed!

I think the solution is to let newcomers eavesdrop, not participate as full members from the moment they receive their passwords. There's a lot to learn by browsing. Problem is, most of the useful comments on images are buried because we've allowed nearly unlimited uploads and socializing on images to dilute what we have to offer.

 

The other solution, as so many have pleaded for, is to compartmentalize. Expand on the POW format, set up rotating critique circles and use volunteer help. Give us old farts something we can use to keep our old, decaying, retro style from dying.

Don�t know about anyone else but I�m having constant problems these days just trying to get onto photo.net. So many time outs and server errors. It brings to mind the analogy of overcrowded motorways. The politicians all too predictable answer to this is to build more motorways, which in turn attracts more motorists so they build even more motorways and so on for ever, despite which the travelling times get slower year by year. But aren�t photo.net taking exactly the same route, have a subscription drive, buy more servers, this allows more punters onto the site which means they need more servers? More servers will certainly allow more punters onto the site but unless it improves the service and delivers the service the punters want, will it really attract more paying punters?<p>I know that photo.net is not a democracy. I should imagine the overriding aim of photo.net is to hopefully make some money for their investors which is understandable and good luck to them.<p>Brian and Bob must be utterly sick of constant moaning about the ratings system and abuse, but the fact is there are many subscribers who are also less than happy with the situation. Frankly I don�t let it bother me anymore and rarely post an image these days, but I would like to be able to access the Forums on a consistent basis, something which I am finding more and more difficult.<p>Perhaps there are no answers to the seemingly constant discontent with the ratings system and the issues of visibility on the site, but not valuing subscriber�s input and concerns isn�t going to solve anything.

Michael, I do have a lot of advantages, I agree, and I'm grateful for every one, but understand that they didn't come easy.

 

Early on in my career I photographed baseball player Tug McGraw for the weekly paper in my home town, I was about 25 years old at the time, I guess he was around 40, roughly the same age as I am now. In conversation during the shoot, he commented about my lack of experience as "paying my dues."

 

To understand the effort and dedication it takes to reach the level of someone like Carlos, one has to understand what it means to pay the dues. It takes sacrifice, guts, long hours, plenty of knocks in the form of lost jobs, lost accounts, cheats who hire you and don't pay, botched jobs, etc. For many here who've been paying their dues for years it's insulting to endure the talentless numbnuts to waltz up and piss on your work. Is Carlos thin skinned because this angers him? Don't you think his reaction would be very different if Richard Avedon, or Francesco Scavullo, or some other recognized master would drop by and do the pissing?

 

Maybe there are limits to how much jackass bullshit one can take before opting out, before making a value judgement that pits the weight of the respect one feels they deserve after many years of hard work versus insults from individuals with no credibilty. Carlos apparently reached that limit, weighed the two, and found one lacking. I can't say I blame him.

 

Whenver solutions to this issue are raised in these forums the opposition is always the same: Doomsday! Bob, I don't mean to pick on you, but you make my point very well when you reject one of your own solutions on the basis that it "would drive away the majority of users, then revenue would drop, photo.net couldn't pay it's ISP bills and the site would fold."

 

That's a worst case scenario, but not the likely one. Sure, trimming the fat might cause a dip in the number of daily hits, but like Keith says, increasing the server capacity only increases the size of the problem. We might be here next year, not on photo.net, but on photosaurus.net, the great dinosaur of Internet photo sites. I can see it now, stomping around in cyberspace, devouring smaller photo sites, snarling and slobbering as it engulfs millions of hits per hour until one day it keels over and collapses, a stinking heap of mangled jpgs and txt files. Perhaps we will all be around when they excavate the remains, the server in Brian's basement, dustcoverd and still flashing meekly with leftover ions. <blink> <blink> <blink>.....<blink>

 

LOL! Talk about doomsday. By the way, the pictures of Tug McGraw sucked and are among the most embarrassing photos I've ever made. Somehow I made him look like a sissy.

Oh please, the majority of people that leave the site because of ratings leave because they're not getting all 6's and 7's like they think they deserve and generally don't contribute much to the site in general. All they do is bitch bitch bitch then make a big deal about leaving and then come back. There attention seekers and this is a good outlet for them to get that attention they crave. If they don't get the right type of attention they get all pissy. boo effin hoo.

Doug, what I do professionally ain't a piece of cake either, and I'd also be mad as hell if some half-wit came along without a clue decided to be a smartass. But I'm fortunate. My association in real life are with professionals armed with credentials in a professional setting where half-wits are not admitted. You obviously have very strong feelings which I understand, but if I may respectfully pose a question, what might be the motivation of seasoned professional photographers to congregate in a place like this? And please understand that the question isn't meant to irk but one that genuinely puzzles me. <br><br>I'm here to better my photography and to share a common interest with fellow hobbyists. And if I have something to offer of value, all the better. I'm not here to win contests, but if I do on the merits of my work, I will value that as a validation of my equally hard work, dedication and commitment to a mere hobby. I'm also hoping to have a little fun along the way with a few new friends in the spirit of mutual respect in a noncompetitive way, which I suspect are reasons why most nonprofessional members are here.

<em>Whenver solutions to this issue are raised in these forums the opposition is always the same: Doomsday! Bob, I don't mean to pick on you, but you make my point very well when you reject one of your own solutions on the basis that it "would drive away the majority of users, then revenue would drop, photo.net couldn't pay it's ISP bills and the site would fold</em>

 

<p>

It's very easy to dismiss this possibility if you have no responsibility for it and can just walk away and find another site. It's a different matter when you have the responsibility of keeping the site financially self-supporting and perhaps even paying off the long term debts. Playing with other people's money is pretty easy.

<p>

I don't know the exact details, but I think it's been reported here before that photo.net is technically bankrupt. The debts (owed to initial investors) outweigh the assets and the revenue generated just about covers operating costs. Things are improving and there's no real likelhood that the site won't continue for another 10 years, but still I doubt photo.net can't afford to take too many risks and turn off large numbers of users just because a few people don't like the way things work.

<p>

You can say that if things changed, revenue would improve, but it's not your ass that's on the line if you're wrong.

The more this thread goes on, the more confused I become.

 

I can't imagine placing so much importance on the results of a "contest" that has no entry fee. I'm really just staggered at it all.

 

What am I missing? People are mad because your photos aren't seen by enough people due to massive gallery postings/ratings? Why is that photo.net's fault? Does this website owe you any specific visibility? People are mad that other people give you bad ratings? That's life, some folks are jerks. It's not like there is any money on the line for "top photo". Why are talented/pro photographers crying about ratings? If you are already a professional photographer, why do you care what a bunch of nameless people on the internet have to say? Why should it affect you in any way? Have some confidence for christsake. This isn't your permanent record here, it's just a website. If these people were calling up your prospective clients and telling them that you sold meth to kids out of the back of your studio, then I could see the problem. But really, what's the issue?

 

What do you want? Real photographic advice, or "pats on the back" in a high school popularity contest? If it's the former, then seek out the people here who can actually tell you something useful. And if it's the latter, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I'm all for some sort of a REAL critique system. But I don't think that's what 90% of the "ratings complainers" want. Hearing real critique is a bruising ordeal. Just like "paying your dues" always is.

In reference to Carlos--I got teed off too (At AZ, then realized he was looking at pics when nobody else was), but didn't go walking off in a temper tantrum, instead paid up, which is something Carlos the great Artiste (can we survive without his talent?) should have done. My impression about the situation can be seen in the postings under his picture. As for photo.net's struggles, being in the Aerospace Industry where some 50% of maintenance and modification shops have evaporated since sept 11th, and where hundreds of millions of dollars literally went up in smoke, and having watched WIRED magazine's thickness shrink by over 75% due to loss of advertising...I think photo.net has done a bang-up job of hanging in there.

Before I become too embroiled in this debate I want to first say that I'm not one of those crying about ratings. At least, I hope I'm not. I joke about them quite often, but I'm happy to play by today's rules, I'm happy to get whatever ratings come my way, and I accept that stupid people are welcome here with the same open arms as anyone else. I entered this thread because I didn't think the idea of being unable to take criticism was the issue. The issue is one of peer respect, or something along that line. I suppose Carlos left because those he felt were non-peers had undue influence on his standing here, and were in a sense, polluting his work. I think this is what annoys people the most--not criticism, harsh or otherwise, but criticism from the unqualified.

 

The management thinks Carlos is too sensitive, that this is the real world, and he should get tough, or get out. I see their point, but don't agree with it all the way, however, the problems are clearly too complicated for me and I apologize if I oversimplified them, especially in light of Bob's last post. You're right, Bob. It's not my ass on the line, or my money, and I apologize for making it sound like it was an easy fix.

 

Michael, you asked me what might be the motivation of seasoned professional photographers to congregate in a place like this? I can only answer for myself. I'm an ex-professional forced out of my career by a spinal cord injury my wife suffered in a 1997 car accident. She's quadriplegic now and requires constant care. Instead of leaving my wife, I left my career. I set about cooking, nursing, helping with homework, driving kids to soccer, etc. I packed all my cameras and lights into my garage and found a 9-5 job where I work behind a desk with many strange, uncreative, anal retentive and annoying people. I came across Photo.net in June of 2002 and it was a virtual return of all that I had given up before. I hang around because it's nearly all the photography I can get my hands on. My current work consists of images photographed between my house and the place I work, or at the soccer field, or from the grocery store parking lot. Since I don't have the facilities, nor the time, nor the money to make prints, photonet and other sites, provide an outlet that is accessible, inexpensive and usually satisfying.

 

Sorry to be so personal, but that's my answer, that's why I'm here. I would LOVE IT to be so tired at night that I have no time for photo.net, coming home after shooting for clients all day, or because I have a big job tomorrow, or because I have a big print order to prepare. I guess others with my amount of experience might be retired, or semi-retired, or maybe have a little free time between jobs, or, just like everyone else here, enjoy the exposure their images get, are looking for a little respect in their later years, things like that. We all acknowledge that having our work seen and appreciated is a motivation in itself, right? And some of us, including myself, enjoy teaching and sharing what we've learned, passing our knowledge down to another generation.

 

In spite of how I argued in my previous postings, I have no plans to go anywhere and will continue posting. As stated earlier, I accept the rules and try to follow them. I guess it's very possible I am wrong, but it often looks as if management here turns a blind eye to those who leave photonet for other sites, that their consolation is not the one that left, but the 10 or 20 that took their place. I like Keith's post a lot. Increasing the capacity and sophistication of the site's hardware will increase the size of the problem. I guess I don't know what the answers are, and I'm the first to admit that photonet does not need me, or my work, or Carlos, or Marc, or anyone else. Maybe it's obvious to everyone already, but most of what I meant to say is that I can understand very well why a photographer with so much experience would pack it in, or tuck back into their own folders and that it's frustrating to see this issue up for discussion only to have it swept away as the idiosyncratic overreaction of a disgruntled egomaniac.

All we need to do is put up a big sign that says:

 

"Ratings and Comments are for amusement purposes only", just like on the Psychic Friends Network.

 

Either that or change "Ratings" to "Numerical scores from the great unwashed public" and change "Comments" to "Things people said about your picture". Nowhere should the word "critique" appear.

 

There's nothing wrong with the ratings and comments system. What is wrong are people's unreasonable expectations of it. Nowhere is it said or implied that ratings and comments will be given at a level above that of "the average person on the street". Nowhere is it suggested that any of the people rating and commenting have a clue about photography. They know what they like and they rate/comment accordingly.

 

Now this may not be what you want, but this is what you get, and I don't think photo.net has ever claimed anything else.

 

If you are lucky, you'll get useful feedback on occasion. You take that and ignore the rest. If you want your ego stroked, you're in the wrong place.

 

If photo.net was trying to provide a professional level critique system, it wouldn't be open to the general public.

Jay, who frequents the Leica Forum and isn't afraid to speak his mind recently sums up the whole idea of trying to get valuable ratings and comments on a site as large as PN says it best...<p> <i>

"If I wanted an authoritative, respectable critique of my work I'd submit it to a gallery, photo editor or maybe even a pro whose work I admire. I wouldn't bring a gourmet meal into a McDonalds for the patrons to evaluate and I wouldn't post my images to an internet forum to be critiqued by every Tom, Dick and Harry with an ISP--including a few Dicks with a personal agenda against me because I stuck the needle of truth into their fantasy bubbles at one time or another." </i>

Just to add to my post above. I've just achieved the "holy grail" of photonet. One of my recent entrees is on the first page of the top photos and it has received about 10 comments (mostly all typically complimentary and useless). So what, does anyone care. I think it is a decent photo but it is overated (I think AZ is closer to the truth on this one) and there are better ones in my folder. I can find a half dozen faults/improvements. Should I break out the drinks? Should I purchase a new mouse for everyone who rated the photo? I think Josh sums it best in his post above. It is almost embarassing to be on the same page with a bunch of boring nudes and cliche photos. I think it is all uphill from here.

To be heard and taken seriously, an idea needs to be accompanied by a path of how and when, which in project management, usually a detailed Gantt Chart spelling out details of available human, time, and dollar resources in a time line that sorts out resource conflicts. It also needs to be realistic and can withstand detailed professional scrutiny. If you have such a proposal, I'm certain management will give it serious consideration. Let's also remember that we're not dealing with dummies running this site. From what I've seen, they're a bunch of professionals with serious credentials doing things that'll make us feel very very small if confronted with similar tasks, and if we think we know what humility means, we should think again. <br><br>I came into this thread with my gloves on, shields up, ready for another round of friendly sparring on an issue beaten to death, but my posture was wrong. What I'm learning is that behind every voice is a real human being with genuine passion, and that what divides us isn't our goals of wanting the success of PhotoNet, but our approach of how it should happen in structuring priorities. I'm admittedly biased, but just as there's a professional approach to photography, there's also one for business that's conducive to achievement. An good idea is worthless if it can't be successfully implemented, and often its implementation isn't as simple as it appears to the unskilled. To have greater felt significance, just imagine a wonderful idea for an impossible photo assignment on an impossible deadline.

"To have greater felt significance, just imagine a wonderful idea for an impossible photo assignment on an impossible deadline."

<p>

Yes, that's very easy to imagine, Michael. That's in fact a commercial photographer's every day life you are describing. And yet, in such weird and so called "impossible" situations, some commercial photographers manage to come up with a shot good enough for the job, or even a great shot - sometimes. That's in fact what commercial photography is all about, because almost all jobs are virtually impossible and conditions are NEVER ideal. Yet pictures get taken and results are published day in day out. I suppose you can see now that PN administrator's "impossible task" is perhaps not really "impossible" either, to follow your analogy. But if a commercial photographer thinks of a task as "impossible", I can guarantee that he won't make it. Or as Bobby Fisher once said "one has never won a game by resigning" - approximate quote. I once wrote in an e-mail to PN's management that the top-rated pages were PNet's portfolio. They are where new comers get to see "the menu". If you don't like the menu, you may find another restaurant - fair enough.

"Most of what I meant to say is that I can understand very well why a photographer with so much experience would pack it in, or tuck back into their own folders and that it's frustrating to see this issue up for discussion only to have it swept away as the idiosyncratic overreaction of a disgruntled egomaniac."

<p>

Well put, Master of colors ! :-)

I liked this as well: "Excellence and profit need not be mutually exclusive."

<p>

Something PNet should keep in mind imo.

Michael Chang wrote:

<br><i>Let's also remember that we're not dealing with dummies running this site.

From what I've seen, they're a bunch of professionals with serious credentials...

</i></p>

 

<p>Excellent point, Michael. Unfortunately, Brian Mottershead's background is

software development. He has neither the experience nor the qualifications to be

listed as Editor in Chief on the masthead.</p>

 

<p><i>...what divides us isn't our goals of wanting the success of PhotoNet, but our

approach of how it should happen in structuring priorities.</i></p>

 

<p>Exactly. I was the only moderator with experience working with freelance writers,

and had lined up four well-qualified people to contribute articles to photo.net. But, as

Brian pointed out so bluntly last summer, he didn't want my help. So photo.net still

lacks an article on color management.

 

<p>Like many others, I don't much give a damn about the photo critique forum. It

was a bad idea, but apparently is so popular photo.net cannot survive without the

financial contributions of the people who upload their photos. But serving text is far

less bandwidth intensive, and photo.net could more easily justify charging for access

if people knew they would learn something when they visited. The discussion forums

have become 99 percent useless. The best place to improve photo.net and draw

subscribers is the editorial side, and photo.net could have the world's best

photography editorial section if Brian Mottershead had not alienated so many

qualified people.

 

<p>Bob Atkins keeps telling me I'm being overly harsh of Brian, and perhaps he's

right. Philip Greenspun wanted the photo critique forum, and Brian is doing the best

he can to keep photo.net alive. But the site has so much unfulifilled potential that i

cannot help lamenting what it has become.

"Why are talented/pro photographers crying about ratings?"

<p>

I don't believe I'm very talented at all, since I haven't done half of what I hoped to achieve at the age of 38, but I am a professional by definition because I have worked hard. As such, I consider myself one of the people your post was about. And therefore I'll answer.

<p>

1) Who exactly is "crying ABOUT RATINGS" here ? Is that the same as "complaining about the rating SYSTEM", perhaps...? It's easy to twist words, but basically, if you took the time to read Doug's post, it would be (hopefully) obvious enough, that you are completely out of your way, as you admitted in the 1st line of your post anyway...?<p>

2) Do you personally believe that a photo site, having kept a minimal respect for photography, would consider renaming its "photo critique forum" into something else to avoid the word critique - rather than finding a way to promote criticism and encourage discussions about photography ? Would you perhaps consider worth studying any proposition that would aim to encourage artistic interaction on the site ? If so, can you, or can you not see the connection with the rating system ? Example: many people retaliated on Mr. X and insulted him, so he gave up on commenting pictures because it was just no fun to him anymore.

<p>

"If you are already a professional photographer, why do you care what a bunch of nameless people on the internet have to say?"

<p>

You are probably not a professional photographer yourself, are you ? Imo, a pro is (not always, but generally) someone who loves what he does for a living. Someone who always strives to do better. Assuming you are a pro, would you then be arrogant enough to say that you don't care a bit about what Tony Dummett or Emil Schildt or XXX could tell you about your work ? Does being a pro make anyone immune to improvement ? I have learned a few things on photo.net from Tony, from Mary Ball, from Doug Burgess, from Marshall Geoff, from Bob Hixon, and quite a few more people in fact. Is that a crime ? I thought that's what the site was for.

<p>

Why would anyone care for nameless ratings ? was your second question. Well, to be really honest with you, I never did care whether a troll gave me a 1 or a 2 or a 3, in fact. But I did care (quite a while ago) about 3 other things:

<p>

a) that some people who are nowhere and nobody would be allowed to make such a fantastic site real mess for those who search for good images. I.e : that trolls would be identified as trolls and would not be allowed to rule the place and make it an unfair place for others (too late, it's already the case).

<p>

b) that those who could help me improve an image of mine or a future image of mine would be able to view and comment on my work. Emil Schildt for example has never commented on my work here, but he has elsewhere - ask yourself why... That's what I came here for: to learn from people like him (and others too). Only ignorants feel they have nothing to learn.

<p>

"Why should it affect you in any way? Have some confidence for christsake."

<p>

You surely don't need any more confidence than you already have. Perhaps you could lend some of it to some of us...? :-)

<p>

I am very fine, thank you. My confidence level is where it should be, somewhere between 0 and infinity. I've probably done quite a few things in my life, yet I could probably have done better, and do intend to do better in the future. To do so, I believe seriously studying photography (analyzing compositions, etc) is part of what it takes. I see you have a problem with that: too bad for you.

<p>

"This isn't your permanent record here, it's just a website."

<p>

Record ??? "Just" a website ??? How serious is photography to you, I really wonder...?

<p>

"Really, what's the issue?" you asked.

<p>

Answer: the issue is that some people came here to learn something from the gallery discussions, and that it has become increasingly difficult to learn anything from comments - ratings are SOOOOO much more important nowadays, that hardly anyone writes more that "Wow!".

<p>

"What do you want? Real photographic advice, or "pats on the back" in a high school popularity contest? If it's the former, then seek out the people here who can actually tell you something useful."

<p>

That's what I finally did. I seeked for advice where I could get some - nowadays I couldn't much here in terms of good advice, so I moved elsewhere, and finally got what I used to get here: real comments. Makes sense to you...?

<p>

Pats on the back ?! Duh... how trite, really... Last but not least, who exactly do you think you are, to talk to people the way you did here...? Is it perhaps that the Globe on your shoulders is too heavy for you to carry, or on the opposite that it gives you the strength to judge people without even knowing them...?

 

Darron, I have no knowledge of the history you refer to, but from my vantage point, Brian and company run this site which I'm willing to support. In some way, maybe the staff efforts are as underrated as your POW, and perhaps like you, we all know our self worth and can only do our best knowing not everyone will be pleased. You seem to have much to contribute, and I hope differences can be amicably resolved for the betterment of all.<br><br>Marc, there are gradations of impossibility and degrees of difficulty. While I wouldn't equate running PN with a Mars landing, it's certainly not as trivial as it appears. I have no knowledge of your expertise beyond photography, but anyone who has managed projects in the 7 plus figures will easily appreciate what we're dealing with. And given the human/dollar/time resources available, it's a miracle that PN even exists. I hesitate to say the following, but how about a written proposal on how your ideas can be implemented given the constraints of a thousand other priorities, and an action plan should your ideas not work? <br><br>If one isn't sensitized to the challenges faced by people running this site by now, perhaps no further words will alter ones perceived reality, but the indisputable fact remains that It takes real dollars to make things happen in the real world.

Please... You have no idea of what I have already written in the past and reform projects I have sent to the management of photo.net. $ and cents ? Of course they are important, and though I have managed 7 figures rojects that were far more comple than this site in the past, I do not claim to be an expert at all in accountancy and business planning. The projects I managed so far, I managed them mostly based on common sense, and with basic principles to which I sticked. Perhaps the management of PNet is much better equipped than I am to oversee the business side of this site, but it is fairly obvious to me that in terms of common sense and principles, PN has lost a lot since 2002. It takes a bit of all folks to build a winning team. Computer geeks and accountants don't rule the world alone, though - ideas and passion matter as well.

Who am I?

 

I'm just a guy. One who cares about photography more than I care about the opinions

of anyone on a website.

 

I love photography. I get to make my loved ones smile and give them moments to

keep. I get to record my life and the things I experience. Plus, it pays my bills, and

lets me type this from bed at 11:00am.

 

Do I care what other "pros" or talented photographers have to say about my "work"

images? Sometimes yes, often no. Just because you are very good at shooting slot

canyons (for example), doesn't meant that you know anything about shooting action

sports shots or the market for those shots. Nor would I be able to give much of a

useful critique on a slot canyon shot. And while I won't claim to be any sort of a

master, I am a skilled photographer. But that doesn't mean I know anything about slot

cvanyons, or bird photography, or macro photography, etc.

 

If I want critique for a new project or genre I'm trying, I seek it out from people who

have the knowledge. I don't just throw it out on the sidewalk and then get mad when

people step on it because they aren't smart enough to walk around.

 

There is no prize for being "top-photo" in the ratings. Ed McMahon isn't handing you

a check. If you want to learn about photography, find those that can help. Don't

expect the world to come to you with meaningful insight and advice just because you

posted your image on a public gallery.

<i>"Record ??? "Just" a website ??? How serious is photography to you, I really wonder...?</i>

<P>

"Permant Record" is a reference to the file folder that follows each of us (in the US) through our grade school years. A common threat made by teachers and administrators that when you get a bad grade or are punished in some way is "This will go down on your pernament record." Indicating that it would follow you throughout life and affect your ability to get into college or get a job.

<P>

I used it as an example to point out that "bad ratings" received here have no bearing on the rest of the world. You will succeed or fail independantly of them. <P>

After all, this is just a website.

Josh - "I am a skilled photographer. But that doesn't mean I know

anything about slot cvanyons, or bird photography, or macro

photography, etc. If I want critique for a new project or genre I'm

trying, I seek it out from people who have the knowledge."

 

How do you find them, Josh? On this site, I mean. Are you looking

for specific information or do you want a reaction to an image from

someone who sees the world photographically the same way you do, more

or less? If we had Categories, you'd be able to find others who at

least like the same subjects. Seems like a good staring point, don't

you think.

 

Notice that I never mentioned rates. I've proposed doing away with

them, so please don't assume we all live and die by them.

 

Michael,

 

Many of us have outlined specific proposals and the benefits we think

would accrue. Fleshing out an idea isn't the problem. It's getting

Brian to change his business plan starting with a deemphasis on number

of page hits which many of us doubt translates into site revenue or at

least widening the gap between income and increased server load.

Offering a detailed proposal for a leaner meaner site is wasted effort

until you get a response that indicates that there may be even a small

opening.

 

There has been some positive response to Categories recently, but

cutting back on privileges for newbies and/or nonmembers and

deemphsizing rates or replacing them with votes still seem to be off

the table.