Jump to content

Nature Q&A forum policy. Comments?


bob_atkins

Recommended Posts

I'd be interested in user comments on the policy for what belongs

in this Q&A forum. Given the presence of the original photo.net

Q&A forum, I'm inclined to keep <em>this</em> forum focused fairly tightly

on <b>nature</b> related posts. This extends to redirecting some

questions which might be of interest to nature phograph<em>ers</em>, but which are not related specifically to nature photograph<em>y</em>, to the

original photo.net Q&A forum. Examples might be:

<ul>

<li>Issues related to copyright

<li>How to set 2nd curtain sync on a camera or flash

<li>Characteristics of the latest Kodak or Fuji superfilm

<li>How to scan images for a web page

<li>Where to buy cameras and lenses

<li>etc.

</ul>

<p>

I'd be intersted in comments on whether you think this is the

best way to administer this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it useful to ask a general question to a group of people with a special interest and expertise in nature photography? Different audiences can give uniquely useful input on similar questions, so I guess my question really is, are the two audiences appreciably different?

 

<p>

 

It's a tricky line to draw, but given the close proximity of general q&a and the tendency for most regulars to follow both forums, I think a closer focus on nature-related topics is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer (to my own question!) is that there would be no point in

photo.net creating a seperate nature photography forum if it didn't

have a different focus from the <a href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=photo.net">

original photo.net Q&A forum</a>. I'd assume that most readers

here would also check out the rest of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/">photo.net</a>. I try to put enough

links in, all over the place, that it would be impossible not

to know it's there!

 

<p>

 

I suppose this could be a <em>Nature Photogrpher's</em> forum

rather than a <em>Nature Photography</em> forum, but given the

proximity of the <a href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=photo.net">

original photo.net Q&A forum</a>, that doesn't really make a lot

of sense unless an issue really needs the unique viewpoint of

the nature photographer. That's sometimes the case, as in

commenting on the properties of a telephoto lens, but sometimes

it isn't, as in commenting on the best place to buy a camera, or

how to set 2nd curtain sync of your new superduper flash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though a clear cut distinction of appropriate subject matter in some instances may at times be difficult to access. It is my feeling that it is important not to dilute this forum, and as such a strict policy of Nature Photography only be adhered to. Thanks --- Simon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the tighter focus. There are many places on the net you can go to get the other questions answered. And, as many other people have said, the Photo.Net Q&A section provides a good forum for general questions. One of the primary reasons I read the Nature Q&A is that I don't have to dig through all the other, unrelated posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As popularity grows, the problem of educating people to the focus of the group grows exponentially! I'm all for keeping it to nature related discussions, however, policing it etc. can take on the characteristics of a full-time job! On the other hand, if we just allow ti to evolve in whatever way it evolves, it won't be of much use, will it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's not much work to delete inappropriate posts. Since

I read the forum every day (or at least most days) and I can

delete a post or thread with the click of a mouse (Thanks to

Philip Greenspun's software!), administration is pretty quick

and easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<P>Bob, it's <EM>your</EM> discussion forum. If, in your opinion, it ain't about nature photography, it's outta here.

 

<P>Since you're the administrator of this forum, your initial response immediately follows the question (regardless of the order it was placed). You could warn that a thread is being considered for removal, recategorization, etc.

 

<P>I spend a lot of time (I'm still patient enough) to commence the first paragraph of a post with an HTML link to an article on photo.net. By focusing nature-specific threads you would be doing us an invaluable service.

 

<P>You could also maintain a page of irrelevant or <A HREF="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-uninteresting.tcl?topic=photo.net">uninteresting</A> threads. You would be beefing up the entire database so a search query might have a better chance of answering someone's question.

 

<P>I don't know if the Nature Photography search engine can access the Original Q&A database and vice versa (I assume this would be easy for Philip to change if it is currently not the case).

 

<P>Why should I go to a dermatologist if I have a headache?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Response to Sean:

 

<p>

 

I'm not sure that the original photo.net Q&A and the nature Q&A

are set up quite the same. My response actually is presented

in the order it was placed, it doesn't default to the first

response (I'll have to ask Philip about that one!). Also the

databases are not linked (though it would be neat if I could

transfer a question - something elae to ask Philip!).

 

<p>

 

The uninteresting threads page is a good idea, and one I hadn't

actually noticed on photo.net. Of course some of the stuff in there

I would consider interesting, but it's not a bad idea. One more

thing to ask Philip about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...