Dead?

Why is this Photography site so dead? Is there something I'm not getting here?

Looks like the same 40 or 50 regulars to me.

Why is this Photography site so dead? Is there something I'm not getting here?

And your contributions have been??

I am among those that are very grateful for the continued existence of PN and I am sure that many members share this view.

Why is this Photography site so dead? Is there something I'm not getting here?

 

What exactly were you expecting, pray ?

Since 'joining' in 2012 the OP has posted only three times so far as I can see.

 

Is it the site or the OP that is moribund?

 

Careful - you know what Thor was like with thunderbolts.

What exactly were you expecting, pray ?

Well, perhaps just an honest answer. Something like:

 

There is much less activity and less administrative support and functional quality on PN than there used to be. Many regular members have moved over to one of the social networking platforms, which seem to be more popular these days. Most would probably have gone that way anyway as the Internet has naturally evolved and some left directly as a result of absentee management, design flaws, and little to no software support. I know that some new members left out of frustration after waiting up to several weeks for their accounts to be approved.

 

There is still a core group of active people to be found. There have always been people around PN who have preferred to limit their participation to more passively reading threads without vocally participating. I always keep in mind the many people who are reading along even when it might feel like there’s a relatively empty room. There may be a ‘quiet majority’ out there appreciating the activity of others but not adding to it for whatever reason. Thankfully, PN never instituted a rule that you must make a certain number of posts in order to validate yourself. At the same time, it stands to reason that members who do participate more actively are going to encourage participation in the face of comments about how dead the site is.

 

The best way I know to garner participation by a, perhaps, reticent onlooker is to invite them and even encourage them without necessarily trying to shame them, which is more often than not counterproductive.

 

So, if you have a particular interest or question, it would be great if you’d consider starting a thread about it. Or just throw up some photos in the No Words forum. The good thing about a dwindling membership is that you’re more likely to be noticed if you pop your head up, but that might also be a bad thing for a more retiring type.

Edited May 16, 2020 by samstevens

We could relax the rules slightly to remove the "once in 24 hours" restriction in "No Word". This suggestion usually wakes up the moderators with a resounding "NO". Maybe even allow a few words?

Sanford, words are allowed in the No Words forum, as the guidelines say:

 

"A sentence or two regarding how you made the photo, the technique, or about the subject is permitted"

John, I was talking about allowing a short reply, comment, or follow up question.

John, I was talking about allowing a short reply, comment, or follow up question.

You need to make the case to WJT.

Sanford, wouldn’t a good place for what you’re talking about be casual conversations? It’s also done in the street/doc forum, the portraits forum, the landscape forum, the nature forum, as well as many of the gear-specific forums.

 

Seems like No Words is the one forum words are not allowed. That makes sense. It maintains a certain spirit and flow to No Words threads.

 

Occasionally, I have a burning question about a No Words photo or a comment I really want to make, in which case I send a Private Message to the photographer.

 

Both questions have been posed to WJT, about including words and about initiating a thread more than once a day, and he’s declined repeatedly. Good for him. He sees fit to maintain both the essence of the forum and enough discipline to help make it work.

Please note words are allowed as follows - apparently there is some confusion.

 

"A sentence or two regarding how you made the photo, the technique, or about the subject is permitted, however discussions and comments about the submissions are not allowed in this forum. Those are best posted in the Critique Forum. If you wish to comment on a member's photo that you saw in this forum use the PhotoNet messaging system and send a message directly to the contributor, or alternatively, send an email. DO NOT post comments into this forum."

Nah, I really don't care that much. Just throwing out suggestions to help up the traffic here a bit. The whole world has been turned upside down and we are haggling about rules rules rules.

Double post. Edited May 16, 2020 by samstevens

Nah, I really don't care that much. Just throwing out suggestions to help up the traffic here a bit. The whole world has been turned upside down and we are haggling about rules rules rules.

I’ve always felt the best way to generate participation was to think of an appealing or novel idea for a new thread or series of threads, give it a good title, and go for it. I’ve done that a couple of times in the past and a couple of the weekly threads got great participation for a few months.

 

At this point, we’re on our own content-wise and if PN is going to work it’s obviously not the admin that’s going to boost interesting content. It’s all us. The nice thing is, we each have the power to take some initiative though it’s a lot easier to blame rules, as you say.

Please note words are allowed as follows - apparently there is some confusion.

There was no confusion. If you read what John Seaman wrote above, he clearly articulated what you just repeated. I was, of course, referring to WJT’s response to follow-up commentary, also knowing full-well that brief introductions are allowed.

 

[strange, this post showed up for me twice, so I deleted one above and typed double post, at which point both disappeared.]

Sam, you've inspired me to start a new "No Words" thread but I've got to wait a few more hours, it hasn't quite been 24 yet.

[strange, this post showed up for me twice, so I deleted one above and typed double post, at which point both disappeared.]

That happens on occasion, sometimes responses appear before the comment that generated them. Have been unable to find out why.

 

The context of your comment was clear to you, on that basis, and the fact many do not read the whole thread, clarification rules was appropriate.

Well, I don't know about you all but I'm going down to the beach before the tourist get here. I need to load up my "To Be Photoshopped" folder so I have something to do for the other 22 hours.

The context of your comment was clear to you, on that basis, and the fact many do not read the whole thread, clarification rules was appropriate.

They’d been clarified already by John. You overreached as you often do and inserted yourself after my post needlessly. There was no question here of what the rules ARE. The question was whether they should be modified and, as Sanford has already agreed, discussions of rules are usually a distraction from more valuable ways of discussing the generation of PN content.

 

Now, do you want to keep this b.s. up or move onto more productive comments?

Breathe. Relax. Count to ten. Please.

 

(not a specific comment by any means: it is general in nature and universal in its direction. There are several good points made in this conversation, let's keep the content worthwhile enough for someone to read in ten years time)

Edited May 16, 2020 by William Michael

let's keep the content worthwhile enough for someone to read in ten years time

Maybe the aliens that discover our depopulated planet in the far future will enjoy reading this.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Sanford

levity is always a good standby.