Resubscribed!

<p>Some of you are aware of my little "problems" here that led me to a sabbatical of sorts.<br>

Since I came back tentatively on a sort of "trial reunion" I waited for a sign before either quitting or renewing.</p>

<p>I have now decided to (re)new for the year because</p>

<ol>

<li>despite continuing problems of a certain sort that cannot (literally) be discussed, I take the effort to bring up Photo.net version 2 as a positive step.</li>

<li>I took the flexibility to go back to version 1 as an even more positive step</li>

<li>Somewhere in the discussions of these events, mention was made of P.net going to a more "subscription-based" model. If this be so, then I think it's important to actually support the site by "bellying up to the bar".</li>

<li>and in the end, there's no place quite like P.net for those of us who like to do something more than "twitter" about cameras. A few other sites looked promising, until I discovered that if you post anything there, you surrender all your rights to the content and pictures. Not my cup of tea, anyhow.</li>

<li>For the time being, however, I'll probably be sticking to a few of the more progressive and "advanced" forums like this one. </li>

</ol>

<p><em>High Anxiety</em>: Nurse Diesel: Perhaps I've been a bit too haaaarsh...</p><div></div>

<p>Good call! I genuinely believe that PN has something for everyone.</p>

<p>Nice. I plan to step up before too long to subscriber status as well.</p>

<p>Yes I am glad to see the classic back. It would have been a loss not to see you JDM, as well as, Mike, Tony, Rick et. al.</p>

<p>Even tough haven't met any of you in person, I feel we are all friends here.</p>

<p>Ed </p>

<p>Nice rationale, <strong>JDM</strong>. I, too, have been considering fronting up with the dosh in support of the site. I might just stand back for a few days to make sure the family still have a suitable place to meet...</p>

I was particularly scathing in my comments about the site "upgrade" since it was so disastrous and it seems they weren't

getting the message. Very pleased to see them revert back for now. The old version has one definite advantage—it

works. It's been very good to have you back JDM. We have an interest in a lot of the same sorts of kit and your

knowledge and observations have been missed.

<p>My subscription ended in July, and I'm still debating renewing...Probably will take a few weeks while things sort themselves out.<br>

Steve</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1562370">Stephen Lewis</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 04, 2016; 05:54 p.m.</p>

 

<p>My subscription ended in July, and I'm still debating renewing...Probably will take a few weeks while things sort themselves out.<br /> Steve</p>

<p>Yes, exactly, Steve. I had JUST re-upped myself, and I was so angry with the -ahem- "mess" - that I emailed and asked to have my account closed and refund of subscription fee. There was NOTHING wrong with this user-friendly site that required a so-called upgrade. I hope they leave it the heck alone from now on. It is efficient to use as is. In fact it is one of my favorite sites due to its "friendliness" of both its USABILITY and its USERS. I would hate for all this to be ruined.</p>

 

<p>I have no idea what your speaking of. I come here irregularly, and I enjoy your posts, and often your images, but have no intention of "paying for them," other than the outrageous amount that my Internet carrier already charges me.</p>

<p>Well said, Ed. During the brief time we were in the so-called improved site I felt disconnected from my fellow members.</p>

<p>Did I miss something?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did I miss something?</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. I was actually ok with the version they dropped on us. I figured most of it out. Not that I was having any problem with the old, for that matter. This is really the only forum on Pnet that I get a lot of new info from. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<strong>I was actually ok</strong> with the version they dropped on us. - the only forum on Pnet that I get a lot of new info from" <em><strong>Kent S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK? Yes, but how about <strong>others</strong> that are looking for answers/info on lets say "Google"? One clicked on the google recommended link (Happens to be a Pnet archived thread etc.), and now you're viewing the new v2.0 of PN stating: "<strong>404 Error - No Page Found</strong>" or on the third day it improved over to kicking you over to only the forum that the lost info used to be in. No original thread/article...</p>

<p>Hello everyone. Yes, Oh Yes!, it is nice to be back with V1.0.<br>

I would caution ALL to keep an eye on the "Website" forum. From what I read there, the powers that be (owners of the site) still have it in their minds to change the sites look n feel to what we were introduced to with V2.0 Hopefully they will step back and really Beta test their endevour with feedback from those that use the site. . . not just the subscribers, but those who really like this site, that's me folks.<br>

Subscribe? Five or so years ago I put my money up and was deluged with spam which I knew came from my "name" of the sub. It was a "dummy name", so I never renewed. Give it 3 months and I might reconsider another shot at supporting the home team. Bill</p>

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Welcome back to subscriber status.</p>

<p>I have been giving this whole situation a big thought. Version 2 pretty much showed which way the wind is blowing. One thing I saw was that my links to Flickr that I post for my articles was rendered useless. You couldn't click on them or even copy them. My initial thought was that all my work will have been wasted. Not a pleasant thing.</p>

<p>One of the reasons I decided to post here was the high quality informational posts of yours, Rick's, and all the other users of this forum. It is very rare to have so much material posted by the users. It is what helped make this more of a community than you typically find in other sites. While this is a benefit to us users of Classic Cameras I don't think it pays the bills for the site owners.</p>

<p>I think the owners want more of a photo sharing social media site. I can't really argue with them wanting to go in this direction as I have no expertise in this field. I can look for other avenues for my material.</p>

<p>What I am looking for is a site that will allow me to post links to my material, have the ability to index my collection, and have a robust search engine. I have also been researching the history of American photography magazines. I would like to have an area to host that material.</p>

<p>I think I will continue with Photo.net just to maintain contact with the community. I plan to use my camera collection more and more and want to share the images I take and see what everyone else is doing.</p>

<p>BTW, when I left last spring, I printed off my little essays and sech in pdf form so that I would have them no matter what. I've been ill part of the time since I tentatively came back (wonder if there was any connection between sleep deprivation and the latter?), but I have continued to keep my own mini-archive.....<br /> Given the recent wake-up call, you-all might want to consider saving copies of posts you "treasure" (my precious)....</p>

<p>I agree with you <strong>Marc</strong>; I guess falling traffic and the necessity to make a buck weighs heavy on the site's owners. The danger, as I see it, is that "photo sharing social media sites" abound, and they're unfailingly about as distant from the stuff we do here on CMC as you can get. The whole Photo.net philosophy of "A site for photographers by photographers" implies we're a serious crowd, not given to splashing our work all over the internet or inviting approval, or being "followed" by the world at large. "Flickr" performs <em>that</em> function admirably, so far as I'm concerned, and I'd happily pay a similar subscription to Photo. net to maintain our current format. <br>

<br /> A lesson could be learned from the fate of the big Australasian electronic company Dick Smith Enterprises, who for decades was the place to go for electronic components, tools, testing gear, you name it. A decision was made to ditch that side of the business in favour of concentrating on the sales of appliances, a leap into a shark-infested ocean if ever there was one. Trying to foot it with the Big Boys was unsuccessful, and the last Dick Smith store closed it's door in May of this year. Perhaps it's better to promote your core virtues and stick with what you do best...</p>

<p>It wouldn't be so bad if, on the new site, there was a link to use "Photo.net Classic" or "Photo.net" Basic" for those who wish to use the uncluttered version. Not sure if that would even be possible here, but I've seen other websites do similar.</p>

<p>Rick,</p>

<p>The thing I don't understand is that the work has been done. It is not as if Photo.net has to do much more than allowing our work to be indexed on an easily accessed page. I would love to be able to see all the work you have done on the many cameras you, JDM, and all the other posters have shown on this forum. I would also like to see it alongside the posts from the film, film developing, and printing forums. We could also have the work of the FD, Rangefinder, and medium format forums. All they would have to do is allow pages to be filled out by the various writers of these posts.</p>

<p>I have noticed quite a few videos posted on YouTube concerning film cameras. We could use that as a means of getting new users to Photo.net. We could also use Flickr. </p>

<p>It seems to me that Photo.net has the opportunity to be the best of both worlds. We have a great forum structure. We have a lot of great content provided by the users. We need to find a way to get more users without alienating those who have been here for many years.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The indices are a a great idea, <strong>Marc</strong>, and I think promoting Photo.net from other sites and forums is important. I can't recall having come across a link to Photo.net, other than from a search engine such as Google or Bing. I quite regularly link back to stuff I post on CMC, using the comment boxes on Flickr, but I have no idea how much traffic that creates.</p>

<p>I have no problem with the membership fee if that is what it takes to keep site open. I just wonder is the fee actually a significant portion of the resources or is PN more reliant on advertising and the number of paid members is used to convince clients that their ads will be seen? I also think they could use a little more discretion on redirecting post to "more relevant" forums or ending discussions prematurely. Some threads do get vociferous but also attract a lot of contributors. Some of them are the longest I have seen and the more participation we have thew healthier it will be for PN </p>

Thanks for the post, JDM, as I was absent during that period I did not notice those alarming changes! It would be a real

big loss to not having anymore access to the accumulated efforts of all people here sharing their knowledge! I was always

happy to find an open source for information and consult and would frankly like to see also my own contributions on some

more uncommon cameras not dissapearing into nirvana. But here we are at the point where many researchers predict

that this might in future be the most undocumented part of human history as we have started to rely on most volatile

storage media ever in our history. Improvements for me would be an app, as I believe most people nowadays come here

with mobile devices. Hoping for the best!

<p>Anxiously awaiting my annual re-up request. The last time I signed on must have been during the "upgrade" experiment as none of my posts were showing up. I was about ready to pack it in but have now reconsidered.</p>

<p>As Gust said, "We shall see"</p>