Does your quantity of forum posts correlate to quantity of photos on Photo.net?

<p>I think my photos to comments ratio puts me in one of the outlying points on your response curve.<br>

Just saying.</p>

<p>Danny,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I might write some code at one point to crawl this site and get a more complete picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To prove that those of us who like to discuss various matters of photography are all armchair-specialists? Yes, the internet is full of them. But spend enough time on the forums here, and you will find a lot of frequent posters have excellent photographic knowledge, plus they talk about images rather than peeping pixels.<br>

So, as already asked: what is the point you want to make?</p>

<p>If I was considered on-line when the survey sample was taken, I would be one of the points with a lot of posts and not vary many pictures. I'm a better than average amateur photographer who seldom has images that would compete with the better photographs I see here. I worked for over 30 years at Kodak on either production or development of new films and processes. I've been gone from Kodak for 6 years, but I still enjoy discussing photographic technology. </p>

<p>There is an old line: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." If I could consistently produce photos like the better ones I see here, I would be posting more. I can't do that, but I can discus the technology. </p>

<p>Danny, it also proves you have too much free time on your hands.</p>

<p>I haven't taken a "real" photo since 2002.</p>

<p>Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach (an old adage somewhere). I don't have a graph but I notice how much free time the lurking users here have when someone throws a post like this on here and it "fills up" instantly with responses. Personally, I think their time would be better spent at some auction website getting into a bidding frenzy on something I'm selling.</p>

<p>Now, I'm wondering if you can do the same type graph for me but showing the relation of Photo.net users and their use of eBay.</p>

<p><<<<em>Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach (an old adage somewhere).</em>>>></p>

<p>Those who teach very often do it out of generosity of spirit and because they have good communication skills, patience, and a love of sharing. Very often, the certainly CAN. It's a demeaning and trite old adage.</p>

<p>When we're on here responding to Danny's "research," it's seems more than a little weird to question how Danny is spending his time. There's time for plenty in this world, even for a-wastin'. I'd question conclusions drawn, however.</p>

<p>I have posted to most No Words since I discovered the forum, often include pictures in regular forum discussions to illustrate some point or other - because this is a "photo" site - and have a number of pictures in my P.net portfolio. I think it's "fair" to say that I have earned my "frequent poster" canisters [please, no jeers and I'm retired anyhow :) ].<br /> On the other hand, I critique only pictures I really like (or more rarely, really dislike) and the bottom-of-the-page postings are the only reason I have any pictures up for critique at all.<br /> I wonder where your graph would show me.?</p>

<p>Your initial premise</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have had this suspicion for a while that those folks who are the most vocal on forums don't have many photographs to Photo.net.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is fairly derogatory and insulting in its implications, by the way.</p>

<p>BTW, quantity and quality are not to be confused.</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that those who are good at talking and poor at taking pictures?</p>

<p>Well I had 5 photos in my workspace but I dropped down to 3. I think 3 photos is a pretty good amount of pictures myself. </p>

<p>"Are you suggesting that those who are good at talking and poor at taking pictures?" There is often a pretty direct correlation if you really do some investigating.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The real question here is what conclusion you draw from your chart. Are you suggesting that the people who spend lots of time pontificating about photography don't actually shoot, while those who really shoot don't have time to mouth off on forums? The data can't support that because not everyone who really shoots posts photos on PN, for a variety of reasons (their images are hosted elsewhere, for example, or they work on film and rarely go to the trouble of scanning and posting online).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Craig's post here. I don't know why the original post was made but, given all the complaints about rates and critiques coming from those who do not have much imagery to 'compare', there is a good chance it is motivated by a desire to discredit such raters/critiques. Otherwise, it is a rather arbitrary survey to undertake.<br>

<br /><br />As to such ratings ect,. if I may. I reject claims that responses are less valid even if the photographer making them has images 'less worthy' then the one who receives the rate or critique. The rationale given, if any, is more valuable from my perspective. The content, even without the reasoning, can be quite valuable.</p>

<p>I also note that the complaints never appear when the review is a high rate or complementary even though it should instill the same level of concern as does receiving a low rate. No one ever seems concerned about the qualifications of high raters and reviewers.</p>

<p>In any event, as has been reported, a lack of images on this particular site doesn't mean much about a person or a group's qualifications since there are many reasons why images are or are not posted and what it means.</p>

<p>Hi, everybody. Interesting comments. It seems like the most common theme in the comments was "why did you do this?" "what is your point?" and "you have too much free time." To address the issue of what my point/purpose was in this post: I do not think I really had a "point" to make. Considering that I have not photos in galleries on Photo.net, I myself have a high ratio of forum_comments:photos. I definitely was not trying to prove that the "big talkers" are not good photographers or that frequent forum-posters are just posing as photography experts. </p>

<p>Like many of you, I own and operate a separate website where I keep my photography portfolio. I post a photo in-line of a forum thread every now and then to illustrate a point, but I do not have any photographs in the galleries. I like Photo.net mostly for the community of experts and colorful personalities. I like bouncing ideas off of people and reading through informative or amusing forum threads. I don't like posting my photos in galleries here because I typically don't get much useful feedback and my personal website provides a much more elegant showcase for my work.</p>

<p>So, what was the "point" of this? I guess to have a conversation like this. To think about why and how people use Photo.net and what it means to them. Regarding hurt feelings, I definitely had no intention of that.</p>

<p>In terms of me "having too much free time," I don't really think that is true. I love looking at data and finding trends, and that is a big part of why I am working on my PhD in mechanical engineering at Berkeley right now. I choose to spend some of what free time I have reading these forums and (yes) looking for trends in user behavior. It's fun, it's relaxing, and it is my choice.</p>

<p><em>I notice how much free time the lurking users here have when someone throws a post like this on here and it "fills up" instantly with responses. Personally, I think their time would be better spent at some auction website getting into a bidding frenzy on something I'm selling.</em><br>

FYI: I work as a writer at home. My job requires me to go on-line and check my e-mails around 6 times a day. photo.net is my electronic water-cooler - I frequently log in, read the latest postings and write a reply if I have something to say. This process takes max. 3 minutes and provides me with a welcome break, Quite frankly, I don't think it indicates that I have time on my hands or that I am asking you or anyone else for advice on how to spend it.</p>

<p>"I have had this suspicion for a while that those folks who are the most vocal on forums don't have many photographs to Photo.net."<br>

Interesting theory, Danny and a thought that's passed through my mind on more than one occasion. I've also noticed that the people who cause the most arguments on forums contribute practically nothing (if anything at all) in the way of images.</p>

<p>Just came back to say that I'm not following the thread instead of taking photographs, I'm here instead of doing housework.<br>

Later I'll probably do some photography and some outdoors exercise instead of doing housework.<br>

Then I'll copy images to the PC and check forums instead of doing housework.<br>

Later on I'll have some food and beer, and then I'll be too sleepy to do housework, so I might check the forums again.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I've also noticed that the people who cause the most arguments on forums contribute practically nothing (if anything at all) in the way of images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So what? Where is it written that posting images is a prerequisite to participating in discussions (or even arguments)? Personally, I look at the logic, examples, completeness, and other attributes of a discussion/argument itself to validate a point of view rather than my perceived quality of a set of photographs taken by someone else who may have an interest in entirely different photographic subjects than I.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>folks who are the most vocal on forums don't have many photographs to Photo.net.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is Danny's original premise. Again, so what? What and how (and even whether) a person photographs seems to have no bearing on the insight and usefulness of the comments that person provides to various discussions and comments on photographs that have been submitted by others.</p>

<p>I seem to be missing the meaning or significance of Danny's main thesis.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I seem to be missing the meaning or significance of Danny's main thesis.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> We're told there is none except to inspire discussion. To that end, I may commission a study on how many critiques are offered by night owls rather than those posting at dinner time. Perhaps, instead, how many characters are typed on a monthly average by those posting nudes compared to landscapes. Perhaps, to REALLY spark commentary, a per capita comparison of the contributions of digital users vs. film users vs. hybrid users. </p>

<i>"I have had this suspicion for a while that those folks who are the most vocal on forums don't have many photographs to Photo.net."</i><br>

<br>

In my experience there's a core of posters with 10,000+ posts - they're sitting at their computers hitting F5 right now - who either have two boring photographs in their portfolio, or thousands of boring photographs uploaded over several years. This isn't specifically a Photo.net problem. It happens to every website with a forum. The most obsessive F5-F5-F5-pounce people tend to dominate the proceedings because they're relentless. There's literally nothing else in their lives. It's their major social outlet, they would be destroyed without it. It's what they *do*. They cling to it.<br>

<br>

In the long term they'll die of old age and be gone. Ordinarily this wouldn't solve the problem, because a new generation of the same people would just take their place, but given Photo.net's generally ageing demographics this will eventually solve itself. A lot depends on how long Photo.net can stay around; it's lasted quite some time, but I can't see it attracting a Facebook-style takeover, in which case rising costs will squash it eventually. The basic idea betrays its late-90s genesis. Remember Genesis in the late 90s? Phil Collins left and was replaced by a man called Ray Wilson. When even Phil Collins deserts you, you know you've got problems.<br>

<br>

It <i>is</i> distressing that a website ostensibly about photography should so swiftly have become a haven for wafflers. You'd think that over fifteen years of so Photo.net would have thrown up dozens of incredibly talented people who would now dominate the world's image-making industries - top cinematographers, editorial photographers, photojournalists, a generation who got their start on Photo.net - but instead this did not happen. It's become something else entirely.<div></div>

<p>So what? Where is it written that posting images is a prerequisite to participating in discussions (or even arguments)?<br>

No one has suggested that you need to post images to take part in a discussion. However, it does seem strange that one or two regular contributors (at least in the medium format section)seem to enjoy causing arguments, but have no apparent interest in photography.</p>

<p>The desire to exchange ideas, however trivial they may appear to some, is only human. The quality of the exchanges certainly vary, but the advantage of internet is that you can do this readily, while still undertaking your other interests from the same computer. More time is often spent, and not necessarily profitably, to find interested persons or groups and to access and to engage in direct communication with them, unless it happens to be a part of our normal work or social connections, or we are lit by some fire to succeed professionally in this medium.</p>

<p>Who really cares how many top (or well known) photographers have been bred by Photo.Net? I doubt if many consider that the main purpose of this site. As for the photo uploads, they draw as high or mediocre a quality of critique as any other well known photo site. Whether it is posting comments or suggestions, photos, or critiques, there is no best mix. You can come and go as you please. As a site devoted mainly to photography and its practice, one can enjoy either, or all, of these possibilities. Seeing a photograph without clear identification of its author (pseudonym, truncated name, etc.) is also fine and correct, although it is not likely to result in any notoriety or fame for its author. But fame is hardly the purpose of a site like this one, or even the efficient use of this type of site to achieve that. There are other vehicles for that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ashley:<br>

Thank you for your eloquent analysis of this topic. I couldn't have said it better....</p>

<p>Freedom of expression is a two sided sword. Anyone can give an opinion, but what is it based on? A true working knowledge, or just freedom of speech. I can appreciate a critique by someone like Stephen (among others), who have a proven working knowledge of photography, but find it difficult to take a frequent posting snapshooter seriously....</p>

<p>The one thing I have learned from this site as well as others is: "Critics hate to be criticized".</p>

<p>I know several frequent posters that have a lot of really good photos here, or elsewhere. And better: they have knowledge to share, and are willing to do so. They try to make something out of photo.net. Instead now, I find "non-vocal" people just claiming many of us (active and "vocal") are only so-so photographers with little to show (*), complaining about the level of photo.net on a whole. Seriously? Where is your contribution? Or should I assume you're a great photographer because you post so little in the forums or critiques? Again: seriously?<br /> Photo.net is a community. We are all together creating its content, its quality (or lack thereof), and creating its future. if you think it's not good enough, then get active and try to do something about it. Share your knowledge, give constructive critisism to those mediocre photographers. Educate. Build. Insulting those who do actively participate, however, is not really a constructive move, I'd say.<br /> __________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can appreciate a critique by someone like Stephen (among others), who have a proven working knowledge of photography, but find it difficult to take a frequent posting snapshooter seriously....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am really happy with any thoughtful critique. Of course, the critique itself must have merit. But it's not about the photographics skills of the person who wrote the critique. It's about the photo itself. An unskilled photographer can bring much more interesting insights that the more experienced photographer might just overlook out of habit.<br /> _________<br /> <em>(*) I really don't mind if people tell me I am a mediocre photographer. But don't tell me because I actively participate in (some) forums. Tell me in a decent critique on a photo you dislike.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>a haven for wafflers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An interesting characterization.</p>

<p>Wouter:<br>

Are you just trying to be argumentative. Stephen Penland (among others) are frequent posters.....I got it all wrong. I should embrace every comment on Photo.net as a community effort. Seriously!</p>

<p>And if I were a great photographer, what difference would it make to you? Great is a relative term, however, I am an accomplished photographer, and I do contribute when I can, or if I have something to say that hasn't already been said, but who really likes all the banter, or taking things out of context. I stated, "I appreciate a critique by, and find it difficult to take certain people serious". So it's arrogance on my part on whom I choose to listen to? Really, is this an America, love it or leave it moment.</p>

 

<p>A couple people mentioned interest in seeing the data without outliers. Here is the chart again with different axis scales and with a new curve fit to better approximate the data without outliers.</p><div></div>

<p>Have you eliminated all the people with zero postings or zero images? If not, then you still have a problem with your model, IMHO.</p>

<p>Consider an analogy: Shooting guns vs. shooting cameras. I shoot cameras a lot. I don't shoot guns. It's not that there's any sort of time/interest tradeoff between the two. I wouldn't shoot guns even if I had no cameras to shoot. It's simply not what I do. If you want to model some tradeoff between activities, all of your subjects have to engage in both activities for your model to be valid.</p>