POTW for September 17, 2012

<p>Once again, the Photo.net "elves" have chosen a POTW from a photographer who hasn't posted any new work in five or six years, a photographer with a meager body of work on Photo.net. Why is that? There is lots of good <em>new</em> work being posted daily on Photo.net...hundreds of photos by people who are practicing their craft every day. But it's like some one at p.net just randomly picks a photo made years ago and sticks it up as POTW.</p>

<p>And speaking of "elves"...let's grow up, okay? There are no elves, and the term has gotten old. Isn't it time for a change?</p>

<p>Jim, the photo has 64 ratings, 6.61/7 average and has been viewed 153356 times which in itself merits some discussion - remembering that the POTW is not necessarily about the best photos posted on the site. <br>

<br>

I think it's as good a pick as any other to open discussions on the quality of the work. </p>

<p>It's on my list of stuff to tackle to re-do the POTW system (though sadly, that is a long list). I'd like to see a revolving cast of "voters" and perhaps even some expansion of the process to include a digital and a film POTW or b/w and color, or what have you. Limiting the choices to active users is something to consider. Though I suppose it depends on how you view the POTW. Is it important is a discussion of photography, in which case why should it matter if the person was active yesterday or 5 years ago? Or do you view it as something special for a member to be chosen for? In which case I can see the logic in wanting active users to be chosen over those who have long ago moved onto other hobbies or websites.</p>

<p>The "elves" thing isn't worth getting worked up over in my book. It's just a quaint way to keep the group of people doing the selection nameless as the photos are supposed to be the point, not the people choosing them. "Elves" works as well as anything else as far as I am concerned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jim, the photo has 64 ratings, 6.61/7 average and has been viewed 153356 times...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No offense, Michael, but so what? The POTW isn't supposed to be a contest based on those criteria, nor do I believe any of those criteria make a good rationale for choosing a POTW. Some of my own photos (and those of other photographers) have been viewed many more times than that. And no, this isn't any sort of "sour grapes" complaint. And ratings? That's immaterial. No one is going to learn anything from a set of numbers assigned to a photo.</p>

<p>I still maintain that if the "elves" (Okay, Josh...) are going to pick a POTW, the photo should at least be from a photographer who is still working, or who is still contributing to the site.</p>

<p>Josh, there's a real problem with having something called "Photo of the Week" or anything "of the week" - terminology that all people equate to a thing being awarded honors due to its excellence, and then saying it's not due to its greatness, but rather just a photo that you think people should discuss, and then telling people not to talk about its worthiness as POTW. It doesn't fly. It never has in the ten years I've been here. It just doesn't make any sense and seems disingenuous.</p>

<p>Change the name to "this week's photo for discussion" or something. Otherwise POTW will always be regarded the way it currently is, a photo that the PN staff thinks is so great it rises above the millions of other images on the site and is therefore winning an award. That is reality.</p>

<p><em>I still maintain that if the "elves" (Okay, Josh...) are going to pick a POTW, the photo should at least be from a photographer who is still working, <strong>or who is still contributing to the site.</strong></em><br>

Ditto Jim, I completely agree with your reasoning!</p>

<p>It's not about the picture, it's about people's opinions of the picture. So it seems kind of juvenile to begin the discussion with with the selection of a picture by an anonymous elf. Why hide behind this silly construct? Give the elves names, and allow them to insert their opinions into the discussion if they feel it would be worthwhile.</p>