Is forum traffic dropping?

Arthur, there is a Phone and Mobile Photography forum here on photo.net. It doesn't get much traffic, though.

<p>Thanks, Mike. I guess I have been asleep since October last. Good addition, that might take a bit of time before it is used more frequently.</p>

<p>All of this means nothing if PN cannot sustain itself because of decreasing demographics. To paraphrase General Douglas MacArrthur: old websites never die they just fade away. I might add helped by those who are resistant to change. There is a lot of good information in this thread by people who are being told they just don't understand by those who defend the way they have always done it. I hope management is reading it and can make sense and find things positive in the obvious interest, myself included, in the survival of photonet by those of us unwashed contributing to the thread. Photonet is being left behind both technically and attitudinally by the rest of the photo universe. I hope I am wrong. </p>

<p>I joined just a few years ago, with the intent of being a part of a community of fellow artist. I have already craved out a career as a commercial photographer hoping to gain some insight into a changing landscape. When I started out as a photographer, there were certain standards for good and/or great photography. You worked on your craft to get published and/or accepted by the top art directors, eventually gaining an audience of fans, clients, and peers.</p>

<p>The Internet and digital photography has changed that. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but the standards have changed. People now can publish their own work, on many different sites and claim they're successful. The egos of artist(s) has always been an issue, once they come together. For me, Photo.net has become more of a <strong>verbal</strong> site than a <strong>visual</strong> one. I learn more from looking at great work than hearing someone's evaluation of that work. The lighting, design, composition, tonality, etc...I can see for myself. After all, this is what inspired me to become a photographer in the first place...</p>

<p>I know that people will disagree about just about everything, especially artistic disciplines, so that doesn't bother me so much. What does, is more emphasis on critique rather than promoting good photography and photographers to help their careers and to set a standard for beginners and people who want to get better, and/or a level to aspire to....I believe the site should become a place where even art directors will come looking for talent.. It seems to have become a playground where everyone can do as they please until things get nasty...and they do get nasty. We all know how people would drive if there were no lane markers. So what and where are the lane markers for Photo.net?</p>

<p>I've got two kids who have graduated university from art programs. Both programs required them to own digital SLRs. In the 6 years since they started school I have had the pleasure of meeting many of their classmates and almost all of them have requested me 'friend' them on Facebook. At some point I always ask them if they visit P.net. The answer has ALWAYS been no. I then make it a point to email them the site URL with the message that their photo related questions can almost always be answered here either by search or by posting a question. I ask the same question of anyone I buy or sell a camera to/from. I have never run across a fellow P.netter this way either (I buy and sell regularly). <br>

Maybe many of us are here because we needed help years ago with the transition from film and we were desperate to listen to those who had already made the jump. There were far fewer places to go for answers then and we all needed each other enough that to be uncivil or sarcastic would have been counter-productive if not ridiculous. That is my story, at least. Today digital photography is no longer a mystery and there are hundreds of places to look for answers and videos to watch if reading isn't your strong point. Not everyone aspires to be a great photographer but many want help in making informed decisions.<br>

I have read thousands of threads here, often in their entirety, without ever leaving a post. I am often in awe of the knowledge and willingness to share that fellow P.netters show. I didn't know that the forums were in trouble or broken. Sure, I would love to see less of the in-fighting and rivalry. I guess old Debate Clubbers die hard. But, all I have to do is read half a dozen comments left anonymously in the Toronto Star online addition (insert any newspaper here) after just about any story to realize how good we have it here. I am more than happy knowing there are moderators to sort out the idiots. I am not always happy with their choices but I know it's a thankless job and I wouldn't want to do it.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"At some point I always ask them if they visit P.net. The answer has ALWAYS been no."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've had similar experiences with my friends and acquaintances.</p>

<p>A few reasons I can think of might not be easily addressed, things like the domain name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and .net sounds like a charity or academic organization. The site looks comparatively antiquated which further reinforces the overall dated perception.</p>

<p>There is plenty of content here but it's clunky to find at best, and who's willing to stay a few days to find out these days.</p>

<p>Successful communities also begin with cliques which is frowned upon here so there'll never be an incentive for anyone to join in order to interact with a bunch of strangers in an antiquated culture and environment. </p>

<p>Few of these issues exist in more successful operations, and for this site, it's a long road for someone to come here, decide to sign up, then perhaps contribute content, and just maybe becoming a subscriber. </p>

<p> </p>

I had a thoughtful post in draft mode early last night when the server here totally bonked and I lost my post. So I retried

for about ten minutes and realized why it is I am frequenting forums less and less these days and instead, worked in my

darkroom until 1AM getting ready for a show.

 

My participation on forums has been sharply reduced in recent years because frankly it gets in the way of photography. I

no longer put work on the net because I am tired of the chasing of copyright infringements, have not had a publically

viewable website in 8 years, better for it too. I also see far less traffic in my preferred area of discussion, film and

darkroom. I post mostly on APUG because that is where the future of my career in photography is, film. Everything else is

just old, tired hyped digital...and I have been using that stuff for nearly 20 years, I really don't care to hear or talk about it,

it means nothing to me...

 

I come here now and then but for the most part, I stay off of the web as much as I can....my photography is much better

as a result.

<p>"but I suspect nobody thinks that forums ever can be "perfect""<br>

Nobody is asking for perfection but when there is a suggestion that perhaps an entire forum on Minox is a bit misguided or a pathetic forum called Deals and Discounts which has neither and no person of authority picks up on it, it is clear that things are staying as they are. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you want an unmoderated site you could have one I guess, but I'm not sure you'd like it."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like Flickr, 500px, Google+, and Tumblr? Those?</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p><em>(Warning: Tedious exposition ahead. Bear with me.)</em><br>

<br /> I wouldn't regard any of those sites as unmoderated. My notion of virtually unmoderated or minimally moderated sites would include usenet, 4chan and reddit. Like photo.net, moderation varies within those overall structures. So while pretty much anything goes on some boards or groups, others have somewhat more active moderation.</p>

<p>But to a typical member of a more regulated site like photo.net, 4chan /p/, the photography board, would seem like completely unregulated anarchy. It isn't, but moderation is generally confined to deleting porn, spam, and outright overt trolling by /b/tards or other board raids involving irrelevant memes. On other boards porn is not only tolerated but normal, with only child porn being off limits and subject to banning offenders and blocking their IPs. Participating on usenet, 4chan and reddit usually requires a wry sense of humor, an enormous capacity for weathering insults, obscenities and flames, and the ability to discern between useless trolling and valid information delivered inside a barbed bundle of sarcasm and insults.</p>

<p>It also involves dispensing with unwarranted self importance. Sites on which anonymity and pseudonymity are the norm don't care about your ego, claims of experience or purported expertise. Every single post is a new challenge to prove your worth, with each opinion or assertion standing on its own merits or failing.</p>

<p>As I've said before, many of the folks who *think* they want less active moderation really don't have the stomach for it. If they did, they'd already be on usenet, 4chan, reddit or other virtually unregulated site where pretty much anything goes. They wouldn't be here complaining about moderation. And they're not really complaining about moderation. They're complaining about *who* wields the power.</p>

<p>There's a reason why new web type forums and social media are popular: they really are surprisingly heavily moderated. The difference is that the individual member <em><strong>*is*</strong></em> the moderator. Most of us don't mind control,<em>as long as <strong>we</strong> have it, personally and individually</em>. The real issue is having more control over the content we contribute, and the unwanted content posted by others that we're forced to see in order to find the content we want and agree with.</p>

<p>Some of the main differences between the new web and old web sites like photo.net are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nearly autonomous micro-niches within existing sites.</li>

<li>Content control by contributors.</li>

</ul>

<p>Flickr groups can be set up by individuals who are the moderators. They can also give moderation authority to other members. Those groups are essentially autonomous within Flickr, as long as they abide by Flickr's overall policies, which in some cases are more restrictive than photo.net's, particularly concerning nudes.</p>

<p>Facebook, Google+ and a few other sites also offer the ability to set up micro-niche groups within their structures. The group owner is the moderator.</p>

<p>Moderation differs somewhat on social networking sites. Each member is his/her own moderator. Any individual member on FB and G+ can filter or block certain types of posts or unfriend/unsubscribe people or groups they don't wish to connect with. The Social Fixer add-on for Facebook gives us even more control (which Facebook doesn't seem to "like", so the developer for Social Fixer is continually struggling to adapt the add-on).</p>

<p>So the most significant differences between new web and old web sites like photo.net involve individual control/ownership of his/her own content; and the ability to filter or block posts, people or sources we don't want to see.</p>

<p>There was a time when I firmly supported the concept of sites like photo.net, where individuals have limited control over their content after posting. In part this was based on extremely negative experiences with another hobbyist site that permitted indefinite edit windows, which were abused for trolling. But in the end I realized the problem wasn't with that individual control over content, but the fact that the site administration was actively involved in trolling and abusive, slanderous attacks using multiple sockpuppets. The fact is, many sites allow members free control over their own content and this ability is not abused.</p>

<p>So, long story short, I'd agree, photo.net's model for rigid site control over member content is obsolete. I don't necessarily agree that moderation is the problem. Anyone who joins a site like this and stays implicitly and perhaps unconsciously wants some degree of moderation - the question is... who has that control. Individual members expect more personal control over their own content and over what they see. That's the direction of the web and social media over the past several years and from that perspective photo.net is behind the times.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lex, appreciate your thoughtful perspective, but p.net is fundamentally different from these other sites which also serves as its way of differentiating itself. Whether by design or default, there are benefits and advantages to an open site-wide clusters of forums not the least is ease of access and active or passive participation.</p>

<p>Perhaps the p.net model can evolve to include elements of social media by becoming more tolerant of cliques in its culture, for example, which often serve as building blocks of communities as opposed to its current culture of assembling a collection of individuals. </p>

<p>The heavy moderation you describe in social media (such as Facebook) is to me an example of ways to assemble like-minded individuals. It promotes peace and harmony, but does little in the way of sharing except amongst themselves. </p>

<p>Each mode of operation has its pitfalls and I suspect it'd be too costly for p.net to experiment as it also does not necessarily solves the problem of generating revenue; it's even questionable whether these other sites are profitable but it's interesting to think about and discuss. </p>

 

<p >I think these ideas are worth trying. 1) <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6942534">Jim Trahan</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2013; 12:05 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Barry, I like the symmetry and natural posture of this portrait. As for a quarterly review, I think that perhaps allowing people to post their favorite four shots of the year (as you setup around New Years). I am open to the thoughts of others. One thing I am certain of is that I do not want to insinuate competitiveness into w/nw. I like the mutual support and camaraderie we have here.<br>

One notion I think could be fun, an idea borrowed from Magnum, is to have fellow members curate their favorite photos of another member ("Secret Santa" style). Random assignments are made and favorite photos are chosen. For example, I may be assigned to Knut (choosing my favorite of Knut's photos), Knut may be assigned to Barry (choosing his favorite of Barry's photos), Charlie is assigned to Knut, and so on...<br>

The thing I like about this idea is that it allows us to familiarize ourselves with the work of others, seeing it in a different way than the shooter: this is a learning and <a id="itxthook1" href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00bQh3?start=0" rel="nofollow">teaching<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> experience.<br>

Magnum went so far as to have photographers write a paragraph or two on what they discovered in their fellow photographer's work.</p>

2) <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 08, 2013; 10:23 p.m.

 

<p> "I suppose if we wanted more forum traffic the thing to do would be to abolish moderation..."<br>

I've actually wondered whether we should give that a trial run. Leave the Casual Photo Conversations and Off Topic forums essentially unmoderated - at least free of routine daily oversight. If there are serious problems, members with the "report spam" ability could flag posts for moderator attention.<br>

But otherwise, anything and everything goes - no limits on rumors, no limits on gratuitous versus threads, no limits on any topic of any kind as long as it's photo related for the Casual forum. Otherwise, everything goes to the Off Topic forum. A few designated members would have the ability to report abuse, which would be limited to overt spam, porn and death threats. Otherwise, participants enter at their own peril and assume all responsibility for resulting butthurt.<br>

It would eventually become more like YouTube comments or some of 4chan's less noxious boards, like /p/, /tv/... anything but /b/. Some folks might enjoy the daily free for all saloon brawls. Others would eventually be alienated by the inevitable sexism and gratuitous cussing and insults.<br>

Members who prefer moderated forums could still find refuge in the other existing forums.<br>

It'd be an interesting experiment.<br>

*****<br>

JSC</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p >I think these ideas are worth trying. 1) <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6942534">Jim Trahan</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2013; 12:05 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Barry, I like the symmetry and natural posture of this portrait. As for a quarterly review, I think that perhaps allowing people to post their favorite four shots of the year (as you setup around New Years). I am open to the thoughts of others. One thing I am certain of is that I do not want to insinuate competitiveness into w/nw. I like the mutual support and camaraderie we have here.<br>

One notion I think could be fun, an idea borrowed from Magnum, is to have fellow members curate their favorite photos of another member ("Secret Santa" style). Random assignments are made and favorite photos are chosen. For example, I may be assigned to Knut (choosing my favorite of Knut's photos), Knut may be assigned to Barry (choosing his favorite of Barry's photos), Charlie is assigned to Knut, and so on...<br>

The thing I like about this idea is that it allows us to familiarize ourselves with the work of others, seeing it in a different way than the shooter: this is a learning and <a id="itxthook1" href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00bQh3?start=0" rel="nofollow">teaching<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> experience.<br>

Magnum went so far as to have photographers write a paragraph or two on what they discovered in their fellow photographer's work.</p>

2) <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 08, 2013; 10:23 p.m.

 

<p> "I suppose if we wanted more forum traffic the thing to do would be to abolish moderation..."<br>

I've actually wondered whether we should give that a trial run. Leave the Casual Photo Conversations and Off Topic forums essentially unmoderated - at least free of routine daily oversight. If there are serious problems, members with the "report spam" ability could flag posts for moderator attention.<br>

But otherwise, anything and everything goes - no limits on rumors, no limits on gratuitous versus threads, no limits on any topic of any kind as long as it's photo related for the Casual forum. Otherwise, everything goes to the Off Topic forum. A few designated members would have the ability to report abuse, which would be limited to overt spam, porn and death threats. Otherwise, participants enter at their own peril and assume all responsibility for resulting butthurt.<br>

It would eventually become more like YouTube comments or some of 4chan's less noxious boards, like /p/, /tv/... anything but /b/. Some folks might enjoy the daily free for all saloon brawls. Others would eventually be alienated by the inevitable sexism and gratuitous cussing and insults.<br>

Members who prefer moderated forums could still find refuge in the other existing forums.<br>

It'd be an interesting experiment.<br>

*****<br>

JSC</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p >I think these ideas are worth trying. 1) <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6942534">Jim Trahan</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2013; 12:05 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Barry, I like the symmetry and natural posture of this portrait. As for a quarterly review, I think that perhaps allowing people to post their favorite four shots of the year (as you setup around New Years). I am open to the thoughts of others. One thing I am certain of is that I do not want to insinuate competitiveness into w/nw. I like the mutual support and camaraderie we have here.<br>

One notion I think could be fun, an idea borrowed from Magnum, is to have fellow members curate their favorite photos of another member ("Secret Santa" style). Random assignments are made and favorite photos are chosen. For example, I may be assigned to Knut (choosing my favorite of Knut's photos), Knut may be assigned to Barry (choosing his favorite of Barry's photos), Charlie is assigned to Knut, and so on...<br>

The thing I like about this idea is that it allows us to familiarize ourselves with the work of others, seeing it in a different way than the shooter: this is a learning and <a id="itxthook1" href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00bQh3?start=0" rel="nofollow">teaching<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> experience.<br>

Magnum went so far as to have photographers write a paragraph or two on what they discovered in their fellow photographer's work.</p>

2) <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 08, 2013; 10:23 p.m.

 

<p> "I suppose if we wanted more forum traffic the thing to do would be to abolish moderation..."<br>

I've actually wondered whether we should give that a trial run. Leave the Casual Photo Conversations and Off Topic forums essentially unmoderated - at least free of routine daily oversight. If there are serious problems, members with the "report spam" ability could flag posts for moderator attention.<br>

But otherwise, anything and everything goes - no limits on rumors, no limits on gratuitous versus threads, no limits on any topic of any kind as long as it's photo related for the Casual forum. Otherwise, everything goes to the Off Topic forum. A few designated members would have the ability to report abuse, which would be limited to overt spam, porn and death threats. Otherwise, participants enter at their own peril and assume all responsibility for resulting butthurt.<br>

It would eventually become more like YouTube comments or some of 4chan's less noxious boards, like /p/, /tv/... anything but /b/. Some folks might enjoy the daily free for all saloon brawls. Others would eventually be alienated by the inevitable sexism and gratuitous cussing and insults.<br>

Members who prefer moderated forums could still find refuge in the other existing forums.<br>

It'd be an interesting experiment.<br>

*****<br>

JSC</p>

 

 

 

 

<p>Fix the interface!</p>

<p>What's truly absurd about the moderators' comments is the concern about PN becoming vulgar. Doesn't PN have to attract a great deal <strong><em>more</em></strong> attention before vulgarity becomes worrisome?</p>

<p>I have never had a problem with moderators or their stepping in when things get out of hand. My work background had a lot to do with fixing broken major acquisition programs. A lot of that fixing had to do with changing paradigms and people to get a new start. What is the corporate plan for PN? Is there one or does this site just run situationally hoping things will turn out better? As above, I believe there are a lot of interface problems; i.e. posting pictures, multiple fora, the way photo news is presented, better exposure for customer written equipment evaluations, etc. I also think there are problems with a small group of those playing a big fish in a small pond driving many of the discussions here. I look at DP and their volume where those big fish are overwhelmed by the unwashed in sheer volume and see a site in constant change trying to improve. Witness their alliance with DXO for equipment reports. We'll see if that creativeness stays now that the founder has sold the site. I do not like DP as well as I like PN but dammit they get huge numbers of responses and visits and they don't charge for membership. They also hype for a lot of OEMs. The site is far more commercial than PN and turns out to be quite impersonal for my tastes but one should not reject their tactics out hand. Evaluating them could be useful in attempts to improve PN. PN does not necessarily have to be like them but a study of their methods along with those of Fred Miranda and others could help PN affect improvement. I keep posting in this thread because I like this site but I see here a lot of resistance to change. I think the moderators do an excellent job. So take what's good about PN, study the competition and make a plan to improve the site within existing resources and implement change gradually so as to track by demographics those incremental changes that are effective. It would not hurt to make such an improvement plan available for member comment. I think it important to keep the fundamental character of the site while getting rid of some of the more onerous things that detract from growth and sustainability. I am a paying member and very much wedded to this site. It can be should be improved.</p>

<p>As I've followed this thread several times a day over the past week or so I'm reminded of the saying "if you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there". I'm not at all sure there is a collective perspective on where P.Net is going. Most of us know where it has been, but even there we're like the story of the blind men and an elephant - each of us has our own description, based on our history here.</p>

<p>My belief is that if we want this forum to grow we need to encourage things that are outside the norms we've come to expect. That includes cellphone imagery and text-style postings, for instance. It includes instagram and photo-shop imagery. And, I think that its too easy to post words, and too hard to post photos. That limits what gets onto this site, quite frankly.</p>

<p>In the whole vein of "where do we want to go" we could consider what these other sites are for. I heavily use Google's Picasa and FB to share albums with friends and families. I wouldn't think of using P.Net for posting pictures of my recently-born twin grandchildren, or of my mother's birthday. That's what those forums are for. I occasionally use Flickr and 500px to post my best photos, but that's mostly because there's a little following built up over there, and quite frankly it is a safe place to post without someone telling me I don't know what I'm doing.</p>

<p>If we are the place where "serious photography" is going to be we should accept that, and figure out how to make it easier to post photos and to continue to expand our horizons in regard to where those come from. Jeff Spirer and I argue about things, but his use of new technology inspires me constantly. We should welcome more of that. And, we should have a strategy to use the infrastructure of FB and the others - more links, using their "like" features instead of wasting money to build our own, and building a following that comes to us from those locations. If we want to grow this site we need to embrace more new stuff.</p>

<p>Seems to be a lot of speculation, given that we know nothing about the factual nature of the problem. As a guy who used to make a living out of this sort of thing, I would not want to start suggesting or even hypothesising solutions until I know stuff like</p>

 

<ul>

<li>How big is the decline in forum posts and people using the forums, and whats been the pattern in recent years?</li>

<li>Is the decline in number of questions asked, or answers per question, or both?</li>

<li>If the number of people using the forums is reducing , is it because fewer people are starting or because more people are stopping?</li>

<li>Or is it because posts per contributor have reduced? And if so is it heavy contributors or light contributors that are reducing their posts? </li>

<li>Whats happened to gallery posts at the same time and has the interrrelationship between gallery postings and forum postings changed. </li>

</ul>

<p>and this can (and should) go on. One needs to understand where the problem lies before speculating upon ( or better yet finding out) what the reasons and potential solutions might be. I don't think we're doing much more than trotting out pet theories here, without much of a clue whether they're relevent or not. I hope someone, somewhere is doing the real work on this. </p>

<p>David Henderson. I know this much about PN. Apparently activity is declining. The user interface is ovbviously out of date. There is at least one site with far more activity on the same subjects that PN covers. Picture posting is difficult. The site is difficult for a newcomer to figure out. As David Cavan pointed there is a major shift to cellphones, Ipods etc. that is not covered in PN. There is new management at PN that is probably trying to figure out how to increase revenue and make the site robust. I agree that a full definition of the problem is in order before action is taken to correct it. However, I don't think we the users are going to be made privy to either the financials or management's resources to correct problems once they are uncovered. What I learned moving up in the large organization that I worked for is that the higher one gets in management the more difficult it is to obtain solid information with which to make decisions. All I can do here is to state my opinion that in comparison to other entities PN seems to be lagging the field by some distance. So I think there are problems to be solved. I could be wrong. What I do believe that the set of problems need to be defined and a plan to solve them be formulated based upon capability to afford and implement remedies. Maybe this is already being done. I don't know this and probably never will. So I will just keeping coming here and paying my dues as long as PN works for me. Certain problems are already obvious. I do have some gray hairs over situations like this that I have been involved in. Sometimes, in management one has to act without a full set of facts. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>As above, I believe there are a lot of interface problems; i.e. posting pictures, multiple fora, the way photo news is presented, better exposure for customer written equipment evaluations, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A big problem with this site is the interface. It is unfamiliar to a lot of people. It is not the standard vbulletin layout. But it also isn't anything particularly novel in a good way. I do appreciate the minimalist black text on a white background. But I think the forum database is what it is. I believe a lot of limitations that have been mentioned in the past are due to the forum software and cannot be easily changed. Someone with more knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to spread misinformation. The picture posting policy is an issue. Posters have no control of their images after a few minutes. I personally don't want to give up complete control and have my images permanently on a high volume website. The website is just targeted to a different kind of poster. When I google a question I find the answer here more than I do at places like flickr. I see more pictures over at flickr though. Both sites have their place. You can't be all things to all people.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do not like DP as well as I like PN but dammit they get huge numbers of responses and visits and they don't charge for membership. They also hype for a lot of OEMs. The site is far more commercial than PN and turns out to be quite impersonal for my tastes but one should not reject their tactics out hand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think DPreview is a great site. I don't post over there but if I am going to buy a piece of new DSLR equipment they are usually my first stop. I actually don't think they "hype" products. There camera reviews are some of the most objective and balanced I've seen bar none. Plus like I've said they include full resolution images in standard studio setups so you can conveniently compare different sensors. It's that type of objectivity and thoroughness that is missing from a venue like photo.net. User reviews are fine but I like to have as much opinion removed as possible.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A small request. My father was a combat infantry officer in the Ardennes from 1944-45. He carried a piece of a German tank shell in his jaw until the day he died. Can we avoid the word "Nazi" as a description of anything but members of the NSDAP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If seeing terms like "grammar Nazi" on the internet is going to give you this level of distress I don't think making such requests on forums you visit is the solution. It's been almost 70 years and multiple generations... It's time to let it go. Just like photographs the written word is an art. A certain reasonable latitude must be allowed in order to have an interesting conversation. There is absolutely nothing that has occurred in the history of this forum that would make anyone think that a literal comparison is being made to someone that shot a person in the face with a tank shell.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is the corporate plan for PN? Is there one or does this site just run situationally hoping things will turn out better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, this is the THE question that runs as a red herring through this thread. It's not just about forum positings, but also attracting new members - creating a sustainable future. So, instead of complaining about moderation and what's more, look what really happened in this thread. 15 pages, full with suggestions and ideas what could be done to make this place more attractive - if there ever was a sign that this is a community that cares, this is it.<br>

That does not mean all those plans are good or feasible. But would I be writing /developing a business strategy for p.net to move forward at this moment, I'd pick the cherries and put them on my pie. And start rolling out changes in quick small incremental updates, rather than large projects - to keep this feel that something is really happening.<br>

It would, however, be good (and appreciated) to be clear upfront on what the plans are, try to continue to engage the community where possible. We're worth it, I think :-)</p>

<p>+1 for what Wouter said - that's what I meant to say, I think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The picture posting policy is an issue. Posters have no control of their images after a few minutes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photos can be hosted off-site and embedded here on the discussion forums, or on any comment box that allows use of HTML (including comments/critiques on photos in the galleries). Many members do this for displaying their photos in the weekly or other periodic photo sharing threads.</p>

<p>Again, that touches on my comments earlier regarding member control over their own content. But for many years there has been a way to do this with photos displayed on the discussion forums.</p>

I really miss Josh's engagement and clear communication in the forums...

<p>A little PNET to newbie warmth was in evidence just recently:<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bRHF<br>

I bet that guy won't be bothering us again with an observation about our great, if now long gone, founder!</p>