Photo.net Redo

<p>The new mobile version for this site is pretty much unusable. #ipad</p>

I saw a completely different format and look on a computer at work. It did appear to be sparkly but not

convenient. Hasn't changed on my home computer though.

<p>Ray, <br /> They have reverted back to V1 because of issues with v2. Nothing to do with which computer your are using. I gather v2 is uniformly unstable on all devices. <br>

Jim</p>

<p>Maybe, it is time to start all over again?</p>

<p>What happened to the new site from the other day? I think I like this one better, but maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with it?</p>

<p>I will be very happy keeping what we have. It is polished and functional as is and has stood the test of time. It does not have to look like some other sites. It is easy to navigate and see all posts and photos.</p>

<p>Sorry - but I too much prefer this older version, and did not appreciate the layout and design being dumbed down.</p>

<p>Maybe, it is time for the administration to change the way new PN versions are being implemented.<br /> Instead of a BiGBANG it might be better to go by small steps rapidly implemented and subject to members appreciation as they appear.<br>

PN version 2.0 wasn't really a success, so let's go for PN version 3.1, 3.2, 3.3......</p>

I appreciate that some functionality might require a

move to new site management tools - that's the problem

with asking for changes to be incremental. If we really

need that (and I seem to have missed the discussion

where that was decided), the big problem is ensuring

that all the functionality that we need (which may not be

absolutely everything) is replicated before the change. If

everything we need can be achieved incrementally with

the existing software, so much the better. And for the

record, I personally don't really need anything over what

the old site offered, but I appreciate that other members

might.

Major revamps don't always go smoothly. 'No big deal. It can be fixed & made quite useable. My main concern was the number of javascripts required to post - and with companies that don't have a good track record with respecting privacy. 'Was ready to bail out. 'Called up the site to see if any more site feedback shed some light on it & was happy to see the old format for as long as that lasts. 'Hope ongoing efforts go well.

<p>Could I add a 'me too' that the old version of the site is a big improvement on the new one. I'm particularly enjoying the clean old comment box which handles formatting and hyperlinks correctly. Good work!<br>

<br />By all means make improvements, but any big changes need to not make things worse; a particular problem with the new site was that all incoming links to forum threads (including those posted in other photo.net comments) got broken.</p>

<p>So many good comments here. <br>

I really had a problem with the sacrilege of <strong>404 Error</strong>'ing so many "Google" searches and saved links.<br>

Along with so many links to articles, comments and features of Pnet, our very own <strong><em>Louis Meluso</em> </strong>and his excellent Pnet review of the 'Canon P' camera, appears on the very first Google search page, but click on the recommended link and 'snap', the dreaded PN 404 "<em><strong>No Page Found</strong></em>" appears.<br>

That's just wrong for all that wonderful archived work to be lost to the "improvements of a new website version"...</p>

<p>Question: given that the redesign was a total disaster, will the new site operators at least pilot a new version before making the change? Ask the users what they want, what they think, and put up a test site. Let's face it, I can't find a single solitary user who liked the redesign. I truly hated it.</p>

I have to respond, was holding off but feel the need to give my opinion. The new version was piloted/tested for well over

a year - lots of opportunities for input. Change is necessary - this is a competitive environment, change or die. Simple

as that.

 

Having rolled out a few major systems and websites over the past decades I saw some things that should be fixed before

relaunching. But please, for the sake of this website, learn from those errors, fix things and relaunch. More than a few of

us who used to be regular visitors have wandered off to sites where a 21st century look matched with a passion for

photographs. If we want p.net to survive, that combo is going to be necessary. P.net 1 is too old and tired to evolve, and

it requires a complete makeover. My renewal comes up in January - I hope there's something new to make it worthwhile.

This isn't a space ship. We don't have to look like something out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind to be effective. It's not the design, it's us. Look at the number of comments on pictures, the way we ignore one another. If this isn't a community, it won't survive, I don't care how 21st century it looks. It's no good bitching about the past. The past is the past. What now? The problems with an aging, complacent membership and a declining base are still out there. There are a lot of other picture sharing sites competing with us. Why should people come here? What are your suggestions about how we should deal with all this? How do we attract new members, keep people from slipping away due to frustration or boredom, enlarge our base especially among young people (In general, we're a pretty old group, you know.) Take a look at Leslie Reed's thread "Ideas for Attracting Members" under Recently Added Forum Threads and lets have your specific ideas.

David. I agree with you. I like to post pictures but have given up after posting some 170 pictures in my gallery here

as other sites function better. Although I think DPreview is somewhat biased, it works better and I get a lot of

information there because of better UI and broader content. Fred Miranda is a little difficult to use because of dated

UI but the regulars seem very comfortable with it. My preference is for a simple direct interface and not to have to

reduce my pictures to 700 dpi on the long side which I won't do any more. I think these picture posting functions

should be done in background on the site rather my having to do reductions so as to post in the Canon picture weekly

forum. Better yet the site should readily handle larger pixel content in pictures. Go to FM to see nicely done large

pictures where one can much better discern quality. Whether one likes it or not, DP is a roaring success because of decent UI, a big staff and decent income based on growing photo business support. I rather doubt that PN can really compete in the long run. A new format will not stop growing entropy. The aging complacent membership is a result not the cause of ineffective managment. It is and has been because of inadequate investment in the personnel and marketing resources to develop this site. The new members are elsewhere because of better, more aggressive management by an active competition;

<p>I agree with Jack. I think a lot is up to each of us. Jack, I think there's probably a way you and I could start a critique/sharing group where a bunch of us may want to commit to commenting on each other's uploaded photos each week and get a back and forth going among us. I'd consider starting a thread inviting people to be part of that unless you'd like to do so. Let me know if you'd be interested in such a group . . . and anyone else who's reading this, of course.</p>

<p>I haven't seen administration take much interest in this sort of thing and, like you, I don't mind being proactive to the extent we create our own community or communities within the community.</p>

<p>I really like the idea of a critique/sharing group. What would be the basis of choosing people for participation? As we all know, too many critiques are in the form of, e.g., nice shot. In addition, I've wondered for a while whether the elimination of ratings might encourage more and better critiquing. </p>

<p>On another thread (which unfortunately I haven't yet found) Landrum Kelly made an excellent suggestion for the creation of a round-table discussion group regarding the next step(s) in developing 2.0. This was based on the premise that Admin should adopt a participatory model of site development as an alternative to the traditional "start at the top" model.</p>

<p>Michael, I'd love to be in such a round table. As for critiques, I kind of assume that was what the critique section of the site was for - and because I don't yet want that kind of input (or feel I'm qualified to offer it) I've avoided it; I'm waiting until I stop producing images dominated with things I <i>know</i> I could have done better, but I hope others are past this point. Have I missed how this is being used? Maybe a structured format (what do you like about this photograph? what would you have done differently?) would be a way to avoid the nice but unconstructive comments.</p>

<p>The proposed critique group sounds like a rather elitist affair (a clique in a matter of speaking) while at the same time the current critique forum is full of images that have not received a single bit of feedback.</p>

<p>Dieter, please clarify. What is elitist about a subgroup of PN members forming a group to share regular critiques? As you say, many photos sit in the critique forum and don't get a single comment. My idea suggests a way for people interested in both giving and getting critiques to share in and commit to such an endeavor. I am trying to help and being called an elitist for doing so is one of the reasons I've cut back my participation on PN and will likely disappear from the forums again.</p>

<p>Fred, I don't think Dieter is calling <i>you</i> elitist, just that there may be the perception that a group of people who are "authorised" to give feedback might be taken the wrong way. I don't think that's quite what you're suggesting - more a group of people who <i>commit</i> to offering feedback, but others could comment too? Or were you trying to weed out unconstructive comments? It does sound as though this is a section ofthe site which is currently not offering what it should - but then I don't think I'm the target for it anyway.</p>

<p>Andrew, thanks for your comment. I've decided at this point not to say anything else about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>where a bunch of us may want to commit to commenting on each other's uploaded photos each week and get a back and forth going among us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the statement that I interpreted as a "closed group" of current members that critique among themselves. What are the proposed credentials to be part of that group? Can anyone join? Currently, there is no mechanism to form a group (like there is on flickr) here on PN and the way I understand your proposal, this critiquing would not take place in the critique forum.</p>

<p>If I misunderstood those intentions, then I apologize.</p>

<p>Rolling back through the thread, I think Fred was actually proposing that people sign up on a thread to be part of a group who agree to post constructive criticism on each others' critique photos - thereby ensuring that there's some moral pressure to make sure that critiques happen. I was kind of hoping that people who got useful critiques would already be incentivised to reciprocate, but I could believe that having an explicit agreement about it might help, and may also get the ball rolling (if people feel that getting feedback is a motivation for giving it - personally it would just terrify me!) And I don't think it was supposed to be in any way formal or to exclude others from offering or receiving reviews, just a scheme for offering motivational peer pressure.<br />

<br />

I think Dieter's interpretation - and I read it both ways - was of a private critique group of photographic experts who would offer feedback to others. Doing this might cut down on the "that's nice" comments and increase the ratio of constructive ones - but I gather that the issue is more with not having any feedback at all, and I can see that having an exalted few passing judgement might lead to people feeling excluded. (This already happens a little when the forum moderators exert their authority.) In retrospect, I don't think this was what Fred meant - the group would be open, it's just that by agreeing to do regular critiquing you're getting others to agree to critique you.<br />

<br />

At the risk of running a counselling and translation service, does this interpretation make sense? If I'm understanding it correctly, I think Fred has a good suggestion - with the proviso that it might be worth finding some way to moderate it if the group of volunteers gets unwieldy. (Agreeing to review five people is different from agreeing to review fifty.) But there may at some point be merit in pnet implementing a way of rewarding people for reviewing (or reviews marked helpful) if only in a status logo (like the current subscriber years) as a way to encourage mutual reviewing of the most active members - or show those who aren't reciprocating after getting a number of reviews. We'd have to be careful to avoid excluding newcomers in such a scheme, though.</p>