Photo.net, the site!

Edit

 

My first post/comment should have

been a +1 to Harry T's comments.

 

But I got so annoyed I couldn't contain

myself!

<p>Moderation in all things - perhaps not. Cooler heads should prevail - no one's on fire or bleeding, guys. There appears to a good deal of frustration here from all parties. Frustration with each other, the business model or who knows what.</p>

<p>Please don't judge participants by their gallery or lack thereof, I have a web site that demonstrates many years of dedication to the craft and that I believe represents well my capabilities and dedication to the business. I pulled my images from PN as there was no incentive to maintain them here. In fact as a mere member my stuff was ignored and was invisible as it seems that only subscribers are of any note. Exclusion from most events and other activities fostered by PN are, I believe exclusive to subscribers only. That's fine but please don't criticize me for not being where I'm apparently not wanted. </p>

<p>Art has been consumed with controversy since it's very origins - that's nothing new - but personal attacks are uncalled for and unacceptable. It's simply a matter of intent. Criticism in this format is extremely hazardous as you can never gauge the competence level of those involved - as such - tempers flair - sad.</p>

<p>Jeff, you defaulted to the standard moderator programming - "if you don't like it leave" - you really need to do better than that. We're here fighting for something - something that we all love, yet you trashed your own "problem solving" intent. Might want to rethink that responce, and have a little respect for those who care enough to constructively criticize. We bitch, perhaps because we care and want to help save something worthwhile. </p>

<p>No Jeff. We ALL saw your personal insult. There is not a soul here who does not know what my point is. </p>

<p>And you threaten to delete the post solely because I do not agree with you. If the leadership is reading this thread they will get the point.</p>

<p>If the forums are too bland, what sort of controversy do you want in them? Nikon vs. Canon? Film vs. Digital? Democrats vs. Republicans? Guns vs whatever? What do you want to argue about (or discuss) that moderators are preventing you from discussing?</p>

<p>I'm sure if you wanted to posit that the new topographics movement in photography was an echo of the minimalist movement, nobody would object. If you wanted to take the point of view that monochrome images were different from color images in more ways than just the lack of color, or that the two were essentially equivalent, you'd be welcome to take either side of the argument.</p>

<p>Photo.net is far from perfect of course, but it does present an alternative to the other photo websites. Some people like that, some don't. There are photo websites that I never read that other people probably love. I don't go there because I don't like their approach or their style or their (lack of meaningful) content. That doesn't mean they are wrong or they should redesign their website. There are also News websites I won't read, and social networks I won't participate in simply because I don't like the way they operate or are structured. Doesn't mean others don't like them.</p>

<p>Photo.net listens to what users are saying, but that includes a lot more communication than you see in this or other forums. Users send email with their feelings about the site. Often those users don't want to get into endless forum debates or open themselves up to hostile comments from other users by making public statements. Those emails count for a lot, at least as much as forum postings.</p>

<p>The site is not static. You don't know what's being done behind the scenes or what's planned (and for the most part, neither do I). I do know the site and the way it operates is not being ignored. No laurels are being rested on. Websites don't announce those things ahead of time, just as Canon and Nikon don't announce specifics what they are working on and Facebook and Google+ don't announce changes they are considering until they actually introduce them on their sites.</p>

<p>Photo.net is also pretty unusual in providing a public forum where users can complain about the site. Do you know any other large photo websites with a forum like this? If photo.net really wanted to suppress discussion and make the site bland, this would be the first forum to go. Some might even consider that would be a good thing...but it's still here.</p>

<p>I hear you Bob. Good you left this thread up. I hope you really read all of the posts. Most of the people responding to this thread believe there is a problem. You appear to disagree with them. You saw first hand a moderator making a personal insult. That should count for something.</p>

<p>What it appears you fail to understand is that we have witnessed on countless occasions the moderators slapping down divergent opinions in discussions of technique and equipment. <br>

Your moderator Lex knows that I have spent hours making carefully thought out posts for beginners and others for whom my advice might be welcome. Yet he dismisses me out of hand in this very thread (and you do too) trying to categorize me as a mere rabble-rouser. He intended to insult me, to silence me and to drive me off. That is clear to anyone reading his response to my post. And this is the person you to whom you are entrusting the forums. </p>

<p>I will drop this because I believe it is pointless anyway. This issue has been going on for a decade and nothing has been done about it. I'm glad to be the focus of disapprobation on the part of the mods and now admin. None of us has a pressing need to participate here. That is partially why you see the same stuff from the same people over and over again.</p>

<p>Have your milk-toast site. Your numbers are dropping, long time participants are complaining and the answer from admin is 'you guys don't know what we are up to and we won't tell you. We won't even admit that there might be a problem.' <br>

Keep the site the same. No doubt advertising revenue is over the moon. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>He intended to insult me, to silence me and to drive me off. That is clear to anyone reading his response to my post. And this is the person you to whom you are entrusting the forums.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had to go back and reread what Jeff Spire said in this thread and I'm at loss as to how he attempted to run you off, silence and insult you. Jeff just basically expressed an observation about "controversy" based discussions over photography ones which he has just as much freedom to do as what you're posting. </p>

<p>He didn't use any derogatory or insulting words so I really don't get your point or reason for your complaint. I don't see any problem, so yeah, it is pointless in this respect to continue responding the way you are.</p>

<p>Apurva, thanks for starting this discussion, which unfortunately has been rolling out while most of the rest of the World were sleeping in Morpheus arms.</p>

<p>Now, awake, I see one of the most clear formulations and multiple contributions on not only what is going off course in Photonet, but also many very good advices on where to look to improve matters. Some of these comments and suggestions on improvements have been mentioned lately in other forums, but here they are, clearly formulated and argued for, and yet some individuals have advised not only to delete one of the best comments above, but to delete the whole forum, HELP!</p>

<p><strong>Cara, where are you ?</strong></p>

I strongly suspect that she, like the great majority of people in the States right now, is sleeping. I'm sure she gets plenty of mail explaining what's wrong with the site and how she should make it better, so the contents of this thread are probably not urgent enough to justify waking her up in the middle of the night.

<p>It can wait awhile, I'm sure, Mike.</p>

<p>Patience is a well known quality among PN member.</p>

<p>Apurva's frustrations resonate with me. Participation in at least the critique forums is falling precipitiously. I have no doubt the site owners/managers are aware; surely they have plans for attempting to re-invigorate it.</p>

<p>I joined soon after Apurva did - based on his recommendation, in fact - and discovered what a great site it was. Tremendous support and priceless guidance from critiquers. Very knowledgable and erudite people in various other forums. Made several virtual friends along the way. Many have moved on, others have moved in... but over the years the critique forums have become more and more soporific. The image categories as currently extant speak for themselves. Some get nil postings, some a bare handfull. Over the years the postings numbers have dropped steadily - be it Street or Documentary or Fine Art...</p>

<p>Does it encourage participation? Perhaps it discourages it... </p>

<p>Waiting patiently, with increasing frustration, since August 2010...<br>

<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00WzL8">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WzL8</a><br>

<a href="/site-help-forum/00XSuy">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00XSuy</a><br>

<a href="/site-help-forum/00aC21">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00aC21</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>"What it appears you fail to understand is that we have witnessed on countless occasions the moderators slapping down divergent opinions in discussions of technique and equipment"</p>

<p>No, Rick, what<em> you</em> fail to understand is that moderators are reacting to the rudeness and hostility in some of those discussions, which is exactly what they're supposed to do.</p>

<p>When Cara announced the disabling of the Off Topic forum, I commented that the uncivil behavior would likely pop up elsewhere. And here we are. I wish to hell I'd been wrong.</p>

<p>Here's a somewhat amusing irony: There's an interesting thread going on as we speak about the importance of background in photography:</p>

<p><a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00c5Xf?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00c5Xf?unified_p=1</a></p>

<p>Why aren't you guys over there?</p>

<p>On second thought...</p>

<p>I did not realize when I posted this thread, last night, 11.30 pm or so India time that it will have such a large amount of participation. Went to sleep soon after. Today morning checked out several postings to this thread and read them all on my iPhone. However its has been a very busy day and I didn't have any opportunity to participate in the discussion.<br>

Tim, why are you taking a dig at my competence as a photographer? I have never claimed to be a master or an expert, but only allowed my work to speak for me. And who says you cant make suggestion to improve unless you are a master yourself? <br>

I am surprised no one has discussed the lack of Android/iOS app. I am stating it again. Would it not be fabulous to have one? <br>

I fully agree with Bob, PN is the ONLY site with such type of discussion form as far as I know, and I really appreciate the fact.And that is one of the reasons that I care for PN so much and have initiated this thread!</p>

>>> We should be having spirited discussions.

 

Sure, it has always been that way.

 

>>> We should have knock down drag out verbal fights about issues pertaining to photography.

 

Uh, no thanks.

 

>>> We should review new cameras and be quick to praise and quick to criticize. If one of the camera

companies does something with which we disagree we should feel free to slam them for it.

 

For some, there is more, a lot more, to photography than camera manufacturer smack-downs for not

producing the perfect camera for one's needs.

 

>>> These will bring eyeballs and eyeballs will bring money.

 

A lot of things will bring eyeballs; porn for example. Again, no thanks.

 

In summary I think you are confusing having spirited discussions (which has never been discouraged) with

the progressively poisonous atmosphere and animosity that has developed in the OT forum, mostly due to a

handful of people.

 

>>> No Jeff. We ALL saw your personal insult. There is not a soul here who does not know what my point

is.

 

Sorry, that just doesn't wash. Probably best to use "I" rather than trying to speak for everyone. Also, apologies in advance should what I've written may be interpreted as a "personal insult" - not my intent.

<p>Fred, many thanks for you critique on one of my photos and also for the kind words!</p>

<p>re Facebook: There's enormous criticism of Facebook worldwide. When's the last time that major newspapers ran stories about Photo Net changing its privacy settings, for instance? So why shouldn't Photo Net members criticize Photo Net, and really, where else are they going to do it other than on Photo Net? And does Photo Net really want to adopt the worst attributes of a major multinational company? As far as I know, there's no technological impediment to discussing proposed changes prior to making them, and that would probably engender some goodwill among "community" members/users (however you view them). To an extent, Photo Net and Facebook are similar in that they both rely on user-supplied content to populate their sites. If Photo Net wants to thrive and its "community" members be happy, it should probably make those users feel like they have a little more say in how their content is used. Without user-supplied content, there is no contest of the month, no photo galleries, etc. Hell, Photo Net should have an annual "appreciation day" for its contributors, without whom it is zip.</p>

<p>I have seen "toxic" discussions on a newspaper website in the discussion of a particular story, and nothing I have ever seen in a Photo Net forum has come even close to that. To wit, nothing I have ever seen here made me think it needed to be "shut down"; if someone wants to show me differently, go ahead.</p>

<p>As to what the current administration has done since it's taken over, it doesn't seem like that much: eliminated the POW, replaced it with the POD, brought back the POW but not on the front page, closed the off-topic forum. Addition by subtraction only. </p>

<p>Martin, I have more hope in the new administration than that, but you are right it has still to come. What we have seen, is some moderators overreacting in view of, maybe, to force a specific change through. Dialogue might have been a better way forward.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your passion and concern for photo.net. I’ll do my best to address most of what I read here without being too long winded. <br>

There is no question the landscape in the photo community space has changed significantly since 2007 – we fully acknowledge that and expect that photo.net 2.0 will be a refreshing upgrade to our community. We are working hard every day on bringing Photo.net 2.0 to life for all of your enjoyment and we expect we’ll have a beta site we can show by February. The input from the community exists in the countless threads and emails we have read and I believe we have taken all input given very seriously. We are executing on the ones we can and believe will make a significant impact to the enjoyment of our community. Can we bring all suggestions to live in 2.0?...the answer is no, however please know that any and all constructive criticism of photo.net has been taken into account and we are doing our best at making this a community build. There are many people that are happy with Photo.net as it exists now and of course conversely there are many that believe it needs a full overhaul. We hope and expect to stay true to what made photo.net successful in the past while upgrading our functionality and visual appearance in 2.0. Putting it simply, our goal is to deliver a site experience that is visually appealing, fast, easy to navigate, collaborate and learn. </p>

<p>Because we are largely dedicated the tasks needed to make 2.0 happen unfortunately there is not enough time in the day to get involved in every disagreement or address every compliant and for that I apologize. We (as in the administration and moderators) are currently spread just too thin. We have been and will continue to rely on moderators (who are intelligent and dedicated community veterans) and the community to by and large police itself. <br>

The OP referenced Alexa traffic numbers – and my first reaction was Alexa? I wouldn’t use those numbers as a barometer of our (or any) site traffic as we do not carry Alexa tags on the site. I believe their data model and methodology relies on people that have downloaded Alexa toolbar and it is not the most reliable data source, in fact far from it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet</a> Our traffic is still strong – could it be stronger, sure which is why we’re working on making 2.0 - again - visually appealing, fast, easy to navigate, collaborate and learn. <br>

An app – of course, it is on the “to do” list, however our primary focus is in the site to start however photo.net 2.0 will by and large be a reactive site and will adapt to mobile browsers for most functions. I realize it is not an app…but have you tried m.photo.net? <br>

Speed – is hard to pick up with the existing site as it is currently constituted however it will be significantly better with 2.0. We did do a server and database upgrade a few months back and by all accounts photo.net is faster today than it was in 2007. But can we do better, yes and we will in 2.0.</p>

<p>Look and feel – upgraded and updated in 2.0 and it is being addressed. </p>

<p>Uploader, of course – its top of the list.</p>

<p>“To top it all, their administrators don’t pare down their paying members by harsh comments and admonitions” – I don’t really know how to respond because I have nothing that supports this statement. The only thing I can say is that we will ban and continue the ban those that violate our terms of use. It is an agreement we made with the registrant/subscriber and if they violate it, we simply hold up our end of the agreement. Quite often we do give warnings with thorough explanations that point back to the terms of use agreement which we use as a guide. One might say that the previous administration was much more tolerant of people that had shown a propensity for irrational and disrespectful behavior. I will grant you this – we are much less tolerant but believe me, we take each banning very seriously and if we do ban someone, we do it for the good of the community. Ilkka Nissilia & David Cavan’s comments resonated with me because it speaks to needing “civil discussions and working to provide positive perspectives” – which not only applies to this thread but all threads on photo.net. When people get out of line, it impacts the entire site. Moving forward the beatings will continue until morale improves. (of course…that’s a pirate joke for you landlubbers).</p>

<p>The ratings system as it is currently constituted is less than ideal from my perspective and we know that must be addressed. For many that seek ratings it is about gaining exposure which hopefully will lead to a more meaningful dialog about the photos. We’re working on something that we believe is an upgrade for 2.0 but in the near term we are working on additional ways photo.net members can get their photos more exposure <em>outside</em> of the ratings system. Tagging your photos is key in everything we’re working on – too many photos are uploaded with no tags, no exif therefore they are not searchable.</p>

<p>To answer “If Photo Net wants to thrive and its "community" members be happy, it should probably make those users feel like they have a little more say in how their content is used. Without user-supplied content, there is no contest of the month, no photo galleries, etc. Hell, Photo Net should have an annual "appreciation day" for its contributors, without whom it is zip.” I would say that photo.net is a givers gain concept and we hope that your contributions to photo.net are for the betterment of your fellow photographers. Giving the gift of knowledge is a gift in and of itself. If you require points or a token of some sort, we can arrange that but I would suggest that the appreciation you are after is something you get the more you give. </p>

<p>To answer this statement “As to what the current administration has done since it's taken over, it doesn't seem like that much: eliminated the POW, replaced it with the POD, brought back the POW but not on the front page, closed the off-topic forum. Addition by subtraction only.” Running this site while working on 2.0 is a full time job and I wish there were more of us to lighten the load. You may have noticed that since February we have significantly more recent and fresh content on the site. I would like to thank Cara for all of her hard work towards that end – the sites editorial content is again recent and relevant. I agree that there have been less upgrades to this current site than we’d all like to see it is only because we are working on bringing a new and improved 2.0 to life. In terms of feedback and making this a community build, as I’ve said earlier - we’ve done surveys, read countless emails and forum threads – all of which have gone into consideration for 2.0. I know we will not please everyone, however we will try to please most. Please use this as an opportunity to tell us what you want – there are no technological barriers to writing in a forum thread what you’d like to see in 2.0. So tell us, what do you want to see in 2.0? Or if you wish you can email me directly if you wish send me an internal message if you have an issue with photo.net or would like to make a constructive criticism of how we are running the site. </p>

<p>I believe we can build the most beautiful stage for photography together, but in the end it’s a community site and its only as good as its members attitudes, beliefs and ideals. Please remember that next time you find yourself in a forum thread about to reply….you could make photo.net a better place just by pausing before you hit send. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What it appears you fail to understand is that we have witnessed on countless occasions the moderators slapping down divergent opinions in discussions of technique and equipment. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an invalid generalization. There is no "the moderators". In general forum moderators set their own policy (within the overall photo.net guidelines). In the forums I actively moderate I don't remember "slapping down divergent opinions". It's certainly possible that some moderators on some forums might do that, but in that case the appropriate method of complaint if you disagree with their actions would be to to contact the moderator and if that is unproductive, contact Cara with the details and let her decide. Just like everyone else here, moderators are human and have different levels of tolerance and different standards of acceptability for postings they consider unproductive or unhelpful.<br>

<br>

If a moderator decides to limit a discussion I'm sure their motives are to improve the overall quality of the site and accuracy of information posted. There should be no personal animosity or bias involved and I don't believe that there is.</p>

<p>Thanks Glenn for your extensive explanations. I will wait for February 2014 for seeing the results of your efforts for a new Photonet 2.0. I don't know how you count, but it might just be, that it is fact version 4.0 or 5.0.</p>

<p>My personal experiences on such matters tell me, that sometimes it is better to prepare for a series of significant improvements, visible for all users and visitors, rapidly, than for one single big bang in four months time. Just a suggestion.</p>

<p>Concerning your wish, Glenn, of receiving suggestions of improvements from members, it is my impression, that Cara successfully launched such a demand already and has, without much doubt, received a great number from many members, me included.</p>

<i>sometimes it is better to prepare for a series of significant improvements, visible for all users and visitors, rapidly, than for one single big bang in four months </i><P>

When those significant improvements involve fundamental changes to the underlying software platform, they can't be introduced until that underlying platform has been modified.

<p>Yes, Mike, I did understand, that that must have been the only argument behind such a choice.</p>

<p>It is a very interesting discussion, I think that part of the problems is that good suggestion are not answered.</p>

<p>Lets take the POW as an example. I wrote more than ones that POW can be a good forum to attract members to the discussion . and suggeted to the elves and administration to choose/upload photos for discussion from members that are active at PN and are <strong>the assets</strong> of the site, and not photos of members that are years absent and not active at all.<br /> I think it is only fair and can be some bonus to memebres that are acvtive as well as a stimulation for them to continue to be active.<br /> What I really see is that from the time POW returned most photos were chosem of members that are not active for years and years.!</p>

<p>That is only one problem, I have offered a long time ago, to change the 10 minute to write and give comments as it is meant to be an international site which English is not in every day use, and needs more time to express themselves...</p>

<p>Only two suggestion to better the site that have not been answered .</p>

<p>Untill now at least...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, why are you taking a dig at my competence as a photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you read carefully, I was only referring to your competence as a photographer as it relates to your ability and ambition to learn from this site <strong>for free</strong> the importance of embedding an sRGB profile in your PN gallery images and view those images in a color managed browser <strong>before you criticized and blamed the poor "display" of your PN gallery as being PN's fault.</strong><br /> <br /> Your PN images look quite good, so you might say I was questioning your competence as a thorough problem solver in general toward making this a better site over others.</p>

<p>Pnina, something to keep in mind is that not all suggestions will be ones the administration wants to implement, which doesn't mean they're not listening, just not agreeing. Or they may consider them good ideas but too hard to implement or not appropriate to the site for some reason. I may be mistaken but I think I've read responses to your suggestions. The 10-minute limit has been discussed a number of times and I think I remember the administration listening but also explaining why they want the editing limit. We have to figure that many, many suggestions are given by well-meaning and interested members like you, many of which seem like obvious and great ideas to those doing the suggesting (me included) but all of which won't work well for the site, which has all kinds of needs and limitations.</p>

<p>Think about it this way, I've expressed disagreement with both your suggestions. If they adopted your suggestions do I then start complaining that I'm not being listened to? No, I have to think they just made the decision they determined best served the site's interest, at least as they see it.</p>

<p>Fred, I agree ,not to agree with you, and you know ,that I feel it can help the site .</p>

<p>I think as well that it is a mutual interest for adminstrators and both of us as well.<br>

We are suggesting what we think, and I know that if it will be possible,it can help.</p>

<p>The conclusion is, that we all want the same things! the site to grow ,and the hope that good and active photographers stay , and not leave to other places.</p>