Photo.net Sold !

Does anyone know if there will be significant changes in the staffing of PhotoNet? In particular, will Dr. Greenspun remain the EIC or will Namemedia replace him? Regards.

There are no changes in staffing planned, aside from gaining access to the programming and developmental resources I have mentioned.

 

Philip is still the Editor in Chief. He is currently working on a expanded review of the Canon D40, I believe a travel guide to Turkey, and probably some other stuff I don't know about.

i am not someome who resists change or sees change as a bad thing. i for one like the fact that once the takeover is complete, we the subscribers can take our grievances to another body in principle who would rule over the mods. photo.net had been run in a dictatorial way over many issues. some of the mod comments above about those not liking the changes can leave is a crude example of my point!

whatever had been promised to the existing staff, knowing a little bit about internet business i realise that there would be changes in the long run and this is bound to lead to greater democratisation. trust me, once something is owned by a business, they are unlikely to let members go unhappy. so i would say that it is a good move for the ordinary member.

Folks who complain that there is not enough new content... I'm typing as fast as I can! If you want to write an article for the site, send me an outline. Maybe I can get NameMedia to reach into its pockets and pay $500 for it.

 

The fact that the software upgrade is still not in place is very painful to me. I'm hoping that we can push through that one pretty soon (we actually ordered all new hardware for the site before the NameMedia deal).

 

Anyway, bad as you guys might think I was at writing articles or getting the software upgrade out, I was even worse at selling ads for real $$. The site was burdened with a lot of debt from a period in 2000 when some entrepreneurial types tried to make it into a profitable business. So I either had to get good at selling ads or had to work with a company such as NameMedia that was already good at selling ads.

 

To me the issue of ownership isn't very relevant. The real question is what can we do to make the site the most effective and efficient way for people to learn about photography.

<i>some of the mod comments above about those not liking the changes can leave is a crude example of my point! </i><P>

What comments are you referring to? The only comment I see about leaving is Josh's explanation that, if someone chooses to leave, they are free to remove their images, but their forum contributions will remain (which is the same policy that has existed for years).

Philip. you must know from your ArsDigita experience that the issue of ownership is not only

relevant is is directly relevant to the the 'real question' as you put it. To you and the users

here the real question may be what you describe, but new owners bring their own goals,

desires and profit motives to the table. This alone is reason to be nervous about the

intentions of someone paying good money (I presume) for photo.net.

 

As far as the complaints about the system, I still think these forums are the most sensible,

easy to use, forums around--the software may not be new but it still works just fine. ( I am

anxious to see what the upgrade hold, though)

It's funny what little nuggets come to light when a process like this is announced. For instance, that the site's new owners also own a site called tarot.com. Now maybe they don't care what content they host but this stuff is weird and unhealthy and should be avoided at all costs. I don't know whether there is any intention to have exchange advertising between the NameMedia sites, but if tarot reading ads start appearing here, I'll be gone.

<i>The site was burdened with a lot of debt from a period in 2000 when some entrepreneurial types tried to make it into a profitable business. </i><p>So I guess the piles of moolah Lisa & Rajeev promised me aren't forthcoming? There goes the retirement. :-)<p>Henry

<i>Anyway, bad as you guys might think I was at writing articles or getting the software upgrade out, I was even worse at selling ads for real $$.</i>

A screenshot of this page: <a href="http://www.photo.net/from-the-editor/">http://www.photo.net/from-the-editor/</a>

How can photo.net make money if I got the answer right?<div></div>

Ugh!

 

You should not be seeing those "pick the animal" ads. Thanks for bring them to our attention. I'll make sure we block them.

Thanks Josh. One more question, if I renew my membership (still waiting for the new features), when the new "contract" will start? Do I have to pay the debt since it expired?

No, it should just start from the day that you subscribe again.

Photo.net rules!

Josh- whilst agreeing with others that this may not be a bad thing, but a very good thing, I will point out your comment at page top - the FIRST comment anyone who is a user/subscriber has likely seen about this issue.

 

Quote: "As we all know, Photo.net's success has been the direct result of the tireless work by the team of moderators, editors, writers, and programmers that maintain and enhance the site."

 

With respect Josh all I can say to that sir is - Bollocks!

 

Whilst it has had a huge amount of work done by these folks whom you rightly mention (and I applaud their stellar efforts too, and thank them graciously), it has also been the tireless work of unmentioned thousands of participants who have freely shared their time, experience, professional expertise, photographs and humour to make this site what it is.

 

Drawing a distinction between 'you' and 'us' in anything that calls itself 'a community' is a dangerous line to tread. There are several people I could name (and a few of whom appear in this very thread but I'll spare them the red faces - we all know who they are) who have given huge amounts of their time and knowledge with humility and good grace over many years. Pnet would do well to remember that and give credit where it's due, across the board.

 

With respect - you ignore these folks in your fulsome praise at your peril!

 

Read this in the spirit it is intended please? And best of luck with the new regime! :-)

I am delighted to hear that PN's former controlling owners are no longer saddled with burdensome debt. I will sleep easier tonight and in the days ahead. Since the terms of the sale will not be disclosed publicly (fair enough), members should be aware of how deals like this often come down. Founding owners run with a good idea. They make personal loans to the company during its start-up phase. For the "personal" risk they are taking, they receive significant stock bonuses or attractively priced stock options (all properly dated, of course!). A buyer comes along and agrees to a purchase the start-up at a price that retires the company's loans to the founders and also acquires some or all of the original owners' stock at a handsome price; stock which cost the owners little or nothing. So, do not grieve too much for PG. Those two white dogs are set for life as well as their next 9 reincarnations.

 

Outside of being the object of a few little deceits, the membership will probably be better off in the long run although you can rest assured that the camaraderie that existed here will continue to diminish.

 

The three deceits that bother me the most are (1) It is now clear that the problems with implementing the new software are significantly more serious than the "server gone awry" explanation we received at the time the implementation was aborted. We still don't know just how serious the problems are nor do we have a target implementation date. Could it be that the system has become so massive and complex that it is not possible to convert to a new platform? Just idle speculation from someone who knows little about these matters. (2) As someone else mentioned, I agree that the recruitment of volunteer labor from the members to help the site make its Great Leap Forward after this deal had been consummated was, at a minimum, deceptive. (3) The evasiveness that seems to greet us at every turn regarding the frequency, the type and number of ads served to us.

 

Despite the little screwings we members have received along the way, be assured they were nowhere near as severe as those administered by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs during their races to the top of the heap.

 

Finally, as others have also pointed out, I think PN needs to be a lot more upfront and definitive about which posters in these forums are employees of PN and whether they are paid employees, volunteers or indentured slaves. I think that there should be a link to a page that gives the names of employees and their responsibilities within the organization. Likewise, anytime they post, they should be clearly identified as employees. I was unaware that Pierre was associated with PN until a few days before he left. Likewise, Mary Ball helped me with a couple of administrative matters when I first joined but I have seen little, perhaps nothing, about her in recent months.

 

As we move ahead, my biggest hope is that management, new and old, doesn't treat us like the dummies that our photography might make us appear to be!

Everybody who contributes to this site and everybody who benefits from this site by getting the right answers might find it interesting to browse through the web pages of the new owner, especially the business section:

http://namemedia.com/?p=12

 

After reading these pages you might just like me wonder why we discuss this topic here in the "Community > Forums > Casual Conversations >" section and not in a special thread advertised as THE main topic on the front page where this clearly belongs.

As I said above it should have been posted one day ahead of the press release or at least at the very same minute. Just how long does it take to open up a new thread with a headline ? "We are sold"? Does it take a long time?

 

Let me quote:

"The acquisition happened this past spring and is now being announced. I have enjoyed working with the folks at NameMedia during this period."

 

Again ? how long does it take to inform your contributors? Several month to put up a thread?

 

Are the contributors important for you? Would this be a site worth visiting with empty pages?

 

I am happy to use the forum where I both contribute and get valuable information from. I know the moderator in person and know he does the best he can to keep the forum running at an excellent style. I cannot say I feel the same way about photo.net. As a previous poster said: I feel treated like a dummy. The management should apologize for this secrecy instead of coming up with lame dumb folding bla bla.

 

Best regards.

Walter

"Finally, as others have also pointed out, I think PN needs to be a lot more upfront and definitive about which posters in these forums are employees of PN and whether they are paid employees, volunteers or indentured slaves." Say's GungaJim Downs from DENVER (oh I love Denver)

 

So Josh, is NOW a good time to say HEY can we change those little GLOBES to make sure we know the difference between those paid people and those moderators that are not paid. When we have a "volunteer" out their doing good I would LOVE to give themm praise. I would ALSO like to get a chance to know if a moderator is NOT an employee so I can quickly send a message to you if they are acting a bit "off topic" themselves and making a bad name for the new owner of PN. :)

 

Thanks ~ micki

If you click the "About Us" link (located at the bottom of every page), it gives a list of the administrators and forum moderators. As far as I know, the people who are solely moderators (who are not also administrative staff) are all unpaid volunteers. Note that moderators are free to express their opinions and share their knowledge in the forums. If you think a moderator (or anyone else) is violating the site's Terms of Use, you're free to report it to abuse@photo.net, but keep in mind that saying something you don't like doesn't necessarily constitute abuse.

Mike, I know who are full time staff at PN but I did not realize that the moderators were not paid a small amount for their efforts. I also know that there is no difference between full time staff icons (ie: GLOBES that are on your little name). When on another forum question it was very clear that many of us went WOW you all look the same but yet you are very different. PAID vs just being moderators. I, myself have no problem with opinions of the moderators, in fact I personally like it when they give me their opinions, but I think that I think that moderators are here to oversee sometimes and let the forum questions go just the way they should go and not bash (or cause conflict) and YES I have seen them do that in the forums. When I see your little pen I know you just have knowledge and have been here on the forums a while. I have respect for you. Those different Icons do have a great deal of meaning to me. All I am asking for is a change in those icons so that we know who is a paid person at PN. Again, with this change in ownership I think now is a good time to make this small change.

 

Not trying to stir anything up. It is just one of those things that when I finally realized it (or several of us realized it) we understood that it was something alot of people really didn't know. The moderators are not PN employees.

<i> I also know that there is no difference between full time staff icons (ie: GLOBES that are on your little name).</i><P>

The globe icon doesn't indicate that someone is a moderator, administrator, or other staff member--it merely indicates they've made some kind of contribution to photo.net. If you click on the globe icon, it gives an explanation. And the little pen doesn't mean that I actually have any knowledge--it just means I've spent to much time posting to photo.net. ; )

Mike, HA

 

Your absolutely right.

 

I'm just glad I didn't say old! LOL

 

oh my, I should have said prolific and a hero. Truthfully sometimes you guys are my heros. I would need a dunce hat beside my name half the time because I ask silly questions.

 

This is all the reason more for those PN guys (paid) to have maybe a STAR by their name. Mike, thanks for being a hero ;)

And, oddly enough, I just received the very first issue of a brand new "photo.net monthly newsletter" in my email, and it didn't mention this "news".

 

It actually didn't mention any "news", at all. How do I turn it off. I can't find anything about changing it on my photo.net profile. There's some horrible unsubscribe link at the bottom of the "newsletter", but that looks like the typical spammer "opt out", where clicking on it triples your spam.

 

http://links.mkt691.com/ui/modules/display/optOut... (it goes on for a while, with cattle tracking codes).

I would never click on a link like that - gives me the creeps^^

Must be a trojan.

Joseph,

 

The opt out link on the newsletter is the way to keep it from coming into your inbox.

 

We have to use a mailing company to handle such a large amount of email without the photo.net servers being tagged as spam. This would be particularly bad since it would end up with all communication from photo.net being blocked. Causing users to miss out on notifications and other legitimate email.

 

I hope that in the near future there will be a link that allows the newsletter to be enabled/disabled from the "my workspace" area. It is something that I am working on getting created.

Micki,

 

The icon situation is being worked on. Look for it to change in the next few weeks.