POTW. where is it ?

POTW is; by definition, irrelevent.

The concept of aesthetic worth by somebody else's judgement is an absurdity; aesthetics are a personal response from an individual's perspective, and it is a trivial step to realize that selection or judgement by an anonymous comittee is worhtless, because both anoymous and commitee.

Conversely, it was often repeated that POTW did not represent a value judgement as an "award", but a 'suggestion for discussion' or some such meaningless blather that carried the implication that this is a photograph you should be looking at for these reasons (as detailed in the reasons by the comitee. (every time I write comitee, spell check red flags it ____ I don't care.... it's not a word or concept worth getting right). Well, the idea that an external source has merit in determining what criteria I should be using to look at a photo is just as objectionable.

We have a critique forum, (for those who have failed to realize it on their own), where any and all photos are subject to discussion. Go browse and comment; the idea that you have to (or are entitled to) be spoon-fed is over.

It has no validity, never had any validity, and never will have any validity,

The absence of POTW, or POTD, or POanything is a step forward:

I consider it to be a progressive thing (whether it's by decision or circumstance), and

I have no sympathy for those who lament it, through need, because they cannot form their own opinions,

or those who bemoan their loss of supposed entitlement.

every time I write comitee, spell check red flags it

That's because you're misspelling it. The word "committee" has two "m"s and two "t"s in addition to the two "e"s at the end.

a 'suggestion for discussion' or some such meaningless blather that carried the implication that this is a photograph you should be looking at for these reasons (as detailed in the reasons by the comitee. [sic]

It's been years since anyone or any committee gave reasons why a specific POTW was chosen. If blather is to some extent speaking when one hasn't got an idea of what they're talking about, you may be guilty of it yourself.

I have no sympathy for those who lament it

It seems you have no empathy either.

We have a critique forum

We do. The POTW served a different purpose. The critique forum photos are come across fairly randomly and often miss getting viewed unless you happen upon them. These days, rarely do more than one or two people comment on photos in portfolios. The POTW, on the other hand, was more of a specified public offering where not only did critiques get shared with the photographer but critiques got shared among members, in what up until more recently was a larger forum than often happens with respect to the photos in our galleries.

 

None of this is to suggest you make use of the POTW or have anything to do with it. It's just to clear up some of the many misunderstandings in your post.

Did Norman know the exact number of members were logged into PN back then or was he referring to a small group of like minded hipster photographers he found interesting and assumed made up the entire site of participants

I remember Brian Mottershead, a former Editor, saying the average number of members logged on was 600 and the number of visitors (unregistered users or registered users not logged in) was much more.

 

To get an idea of how vibrant the site was look at the POTW discussions from about 2002-2006 (if it’s possible).

Around 2006, the original owner returned and took umbrage with the way Brian had been running the site and sacked him and tried to make PN more like amazon and as a result a load of active (arty) people left for flickr & elsewhere.

Around 2006, the original owner returned and took umbrage with the way Brian had been running the site and sacked him and tried to make PN more like amazon and as a result a load of active (arty) people left for flickr & elsewhere.

What this has to do with why people are leaving now or why people are upset with features of the site not being attended to I don’t quite get. But, yes, Norman, you were there when. Bully for you. :rolleyes:

As well as explaining to Tim why activity dwindled, it is relevant because it shows people left for reasons that weren’t related to features. The POTW and the Photo Critique stuff, for example, were still as functional but much less well supported. Edited June 1, 2018 by Norman 202

it shows people left for reasons that weren’t related to features.

That was then. They could be leaving for just that reason now. And even if not, someone speculating that people are leaving because a multitude of features on a website are broken doesn’t seem that beyond the pale to me.

The POTW and the Photo Critique stuff, for example, were still as functional but much less well supported.

That may be true, but dysfunctional features, even if not as popular as they used to be, don’t present a very good overall picture of the site. It’s especially unfortunate, not to mention ironic, when one of the broken features is the main personal photo presentation mechanism, the photo galleries. Giving up on and almost seeming actively to turn off long-time members with an established allegiance to the site, even ones who use its less popular features, in favor of inviting new members to a glitch-riddled site where response time to questions is as bad as it is here and NO instructions are provided to the features that do work but are not programmed to be user-intuitive, seems like a poor business model. Even if on a given day, there are a few new members logged on, what are the chances they’ll stay when they realize what the site is actually offering, how difficult it is to navigate and figure out functionality, and how MIA is site support and customer relations?

MIA

Maybe they have better things to do with their lives as I imagine running this site to be a nightmare.

Maybe they have better things to do with their lives as I imagine running this site to be a nightmare.

If they have better things to do with their lives than running this site, they should be doing them and not running the site. [And I’m not necessarily agreeing that those running the site think doing so is a nightmare or think in terms of having better things to do with their lives.]

This site is dead, Fred, so suggesting admin and co should be spending all their time here and not having a little R&R elsewhere is a little disingenuous, imho, fwiw, tgif. Edited June 1, 2018 by Norman 202

This site is dead, Fred, so suggesting admin and co should be spending all their time here and not having a little R&R elsewhere is a little disingenuous, imho, fwiw, tgif.

Actually what's disingenuous is suggesting that I suggested admin should be spending all their time here and not having a little R&R. What I said was, "If they have better things to do with their lives than running the site, they should be doing them and not running the site." By that I meant, AS A JOB, if they're running the site they should run the site well. What I did not mean is that their entire lives should be devoted to running the site with no time for R&R. Yours is an eccentric, to say the least, read on what I said and meant. In terms of R&R, sick kids, vacations, etc. sites run smoother when there are several people able to respond and fix things so that one being absent doesn't mean there's no one around to maintain things.

 

By the way, I think there's a limit of two hip trendy acronyms per comment, so you may get a demerit for your last post. :)