bob_atkins Posted April 23, 1997 Share Posted April 23, 1997 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 More sharing options...
keithneun Posted April 23, 1997 Share Posted April 23, 1997 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 More sharing options...
bob_atkins Posted April 23, 1997 Author Share Posted April 23, 1997 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 More sharing options...
glen_johnson Posted April 23, 1997 Share Posted April 23, 1997 Splitting this forum off was a good idea, and you are doing a very good job of keeping it clean. I think that the editorial policies that I have seen you apply were appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_allenby Posted April 23, 1997 Share Posted April 23, 1997 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 More sharing options...
michael_vrobel Posted April 23, 1997 Share Posted April 23, 1997 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 More sharing options...
duane_galensky Posted April 23, 1997 Share Posted April 23, 1997 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 More sharing options...
bob_atkins Posted April 24, 1997 Author Share Posted April 24, 1997 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 More sharing options...
paul_wilson2 Posted April 24, 1997 Share Posted April 24, 1997 Don't let it go the way of rec.photo.*. I think you should keep it a "Nature Photography" forum not a "Nature Photographer's" forum. If you make it the latter the discussion will probably turn to Jeeps and camping equipment. <p> Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nes_suno Posted April 24, 1997 Share Posted April 24, 1997 <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 More sharing options...
bob_atkins Posted April 24, 1997 Author Share Posted April 24, 1997 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 More sharing options...
ricardo_carvajal1 Posted April 24, 1997 Share Posted April 24, 1997 Your policy is a good one. There are already lots of places to look for information not specifically related to nature photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now