ADMIN: A personal perspective on the move of the LF Forum to photo.net

DK, honestly, I would be astonished if your posts were being deleted for the reasons you think, or even being deleted by moderators at all. You must have hit some kind of bug. Are you sure they are going in? I mean, if you submit the message then immediately look at the forum message list, do you see the message at all?

Sorry, I see you answered my question already. All I can say, it is either a bug, or the expiration time is coming up faster than you are supposing, or the moderators have deleted a thread by mistake. I can't see why the moderators would delete them as a matter of policy.

 

The moderators don't work for photo.net, and I think if they had received orders to delete posts that subverted some "corporate" policy, you would have heard loud protests. I don't know what to say.

No, I can post 'em, and they stay up for a couple of hours, and then mysteriously disappear...some quicker than others. It's been awhile since I've noticed it...I'm talking about posts in the past year or so...maybe only 5-6 times tops. But after a couple of times, I noticed...I thought it was me at first, but it only happened when I mentioned these products. I know that last year I made some disparaging remarks about this on the LF forum and had some exchanges with a manufacturer's rep over the issue..which I actually welcome. I would like to hear their side of the story....I am interested in the results of the tests and if they've submitted their materials for other tests, such as blocking (sticking to materials) and so on.... it's not like some smear campaign against them--heck, we used 'em for years and still have negs & slides stored in some of them ....but my stance is that you let people know their options, the pros & cons and let them decide. I would be a hypocrite to say I have never used these types of materials, yet I have seen the good & bad. I saw this problem in another institution ...on a neg that was about 40 years old and sorta valuable...after that, I began to resleeve all my own film as well. Yet, I think I sound like a nut or a conspiracy theorist here.....maybe the moderator thought I was baiting someone or pulling their leg....I wasn't going to say anything about this, because frankly I don't give a hoot...but after reading your post above about editing tribby's posts, I just wondered.

 

Most definitely:Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my agency

I don't know large format photography. Consequently, I've pretty much kept my nose out of here. But the (very) few times I have stuck my head under the black cloth and taken a peek in here, it's been largely to sample this thread. <P>

 

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. What is the issue here? Someone's misplaced ego perhaps? This forum is being hosted free of charge. Free of essentially any advertising. By what for all intents and purposes is a non-profit concern run by volunteers. They are very much into photography. Are you? What <I>is</I> the problem? If you don't want to be part of the site, get lost!

well I thought this thread was to discuss any issues about this move...as a participant of both sites, I think my question is a valid concern for me....

Q.-Tuan Luong, As a frequent reader but not so frequent poster I'd like to take this opportunity to send my gratitude for all your efforts and hard work. I am pleased that you are trying to maintain the site as a non commercial entity which in the long run will keep the many contributors coming back to your site, which is what has made it so special and useful. If I was a computer programmer I'd lend you a hand, since not then please except this humble thank you.

I've known Tuan online for nearly fifteen years, first as a climber

and alpinist and then (as creaky joints afflicted us both) as a

photographer. I entirely trust that he would respect my wishes if I

ever had a problem with how my comments were being

displayed and used. I see this forum as a rare survivor of the

cooperative generosity of the early internet, and from what I know

of Tuan I think he does too. I like and use photo.net a lot, but the

feel there is both different and in a state of flux, and I have always

assumed - and accepted - that I lost any real control of the

material I posted there.

 

Phil G., and now Brian, have made great efforts to support and

maintain this forum. I believe they are sincere in their desire to

help photographers and that they deserve our thanks for what

they have done. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent

photo.net's attitude from changing overnight, and nothing to stop

them applying a strict legalistic interpretation of their terms of

use. My employer sees the distinction clearly, even if photo.net

cannot: I personally could host LUSENET and the proposed new

forum on my lab's servers, I couldn't host photo.net. (Incidentally,

I did offer this to Tuan, but cannot promise server space longer

than the term of my current contract, which runs out within the

year.)

 

In short: I agree entirely with Tuan's analysis of the situation. I

hope the move to another server occurs as soon as possible

and that the forum is not left with multiple half-stub databases

and arguments over ownership. This is not a sideswipe at

photo.net, just a wish to preserve a different ethos.

I would like to echo some of the concerns illuminated in DK Thompson's previous responses in this thread.

 

Think about the more generic photo publications: Shttterbug, Popular Photo, Petersen's etc. How many times have you ever read a review that goes into depth about the faults of a new product? How many times do you read a review of the latest aftermarket zoom lens that doesn't try to give the impression that what you own now is junk in comparison. These publications are more about selling gear then anything else. What is the ratio of articles to advertisements(advertisments includes product reviews)- 10/90?

 

The financial success of photonet will become more and more dependent on relationships with manufacturers which in turn may force the end of specific comments about specific products in the forums. One of the greates strengths of the LF forum was the way that contributors would share painfull and costly experiences with specific equipment that has saved me making similar mistakes. Just my opinion, but I think a commercial site would eventually try to limit such discussions.

I think being one of the photo.net forums gives this forum a

renewed vitality and stops it from becoming the club it has been

ecoming for several months now. New blood is a good thing,

from the view of the discussions and also in the real world of

getting more people to use or least considering LF as a viable

option, or at the very least appreciate the difference in and the

value of those who use use large format film and equipment to

create their visions of the world. <P>I disagree with Tuan's

remark that no one spoke up in favor of the move to photo.net. My

memory is that I did, at least twice, in different conversations with

him.<P>

Ellis, yes many people did speak up in favor of photo.net. My contributions to this thread seem to provoke people, but I've pointed out several times that in the December 2001 discussion in this forum of what to do about the impending demise of LUSENET, 29 people "spoke up" in favor of photo.net, a considerable majority. 19 people favored all other options, including the one now being pursued by Tuan and a few other people.

 

Many of those 19 mentioned that photo.net was acceptable and would be there second choice. Probably only 8 to 10 people strongly favored an alternative site and absolutely rejected photo.net, and this number included the people who wanted to develop the software for the alternative site.

 

These facts have not been answered. Tuan is included, apparently, in those favoring an alternative site; so that option wins, and the fact that the photo.net option actually soundly defeated all other options combined is not only forgotten, but is now described as an outright loss for the photo.net option.

 

Even in the current polarized environment, if you count noses in these threads (and only count people who post many times on the issue once), you find that there is considerable support for photo.net. Last time I counted it was more or less neck-and-neck; so I was somewhat perplexed when Tuan predicted confidently in another thread that the approaching Vote would go against photo.net.

Brian, since you seem to pay that much importance to the

opinions of the members of a community which was entirely

foreign to you just one month ago,

will you have your own photo.net community

vote before you attempt to sell photo.net ?

If any of visitors at photo.net is qualified to purchase securities that are not listed by the SEC, and would like to do so, they may contact us to discuss becoming a shareholder. The shareholders will doubtless have a vote in the very unlikely event that anyone would care to purchase the company.

 

However, that is a red-herring, Tuan, and seems to be attempt to dodge the question that I have repeatedly raised as to why the outcome of polls of the LF membership regarding the presence of the forum on photo.net are so consistently misrepresented and ignored by the minority that wants an alternative. If the minority is going to decide because they are the most active, or because they include the moderator, or because they are the most vocal, or because people who are already members of photo.net don't count, or for any other reasons, I think it would be good for you to spell that out so that it is clear.

Hmmm...who is the most vocal, with 31 responses in this thread?

listen to my alternative. sad to say, but perhaps the best solution is to start a new Large Format forum on photo.net, comprised of like-minded kindred spirits willing to help promote education and passion regarding this format, with no bonds held to their contributions. they will make a concerted effort to cache relevant and on-topic discourse. there will be a collection of large-format links to help bootstrap the project, and allow neophytes to quickly reference periodicals, reference books, and off-forum discussions. through those efforts, the forum should quickly grow as the spirit of the forums charter ignites dwindling passions and infuses us all with a sense of collective participation. let it be known and embraced, that your contributions are given freely without encumbrance, and offered as a karmic seed to your own enlightenment.

 

moving forward rather than this continued lateral slide ...

Brian, are confusing the discussion archived here at the forum

with the poll that Tuan held soon afterwards. The numbers are,

unsurprisingly, different.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/polls/poll1.html

 

is the poll Tuan referred to. I personally think that photo.net would lose by a larger margin in a new poll.

J.O. People seem to be confusing several different polls that have taken place on the LF forum. In July 2000 (two years ago), there was a thread, not initiated by QTL, on the topic "Should the LF forum move to photo.net or remain on LUSENET?" At that point, LUSENET was not in the process of winding down, and the majority of opinions in the thread was that the forum should stay on LUSENET. Those results are confirmed by the poll conducted by QTL, also dated July 2000, the sampe poll to which you refer above.

 

However, by December 2001, more than 18 months later, and only six months ago, Philip Greenspun had announced the imminent end of LUSENET, and the question posed was now "Should the forum move to photo.net, to yahoo, or to some other alternative?". I have already several times mentioned the outcome of this thread. Of the people who expressed a clear opinion, 29 stated a clear preference for photo.net, and 19 stated a preference for some other option, with "independent site" being the most popular "other" option, but still a distant second to photo.net. (Note in fact, that photo.net was preferred by more people than all other options combined.) Furthermore, many of the 19 stated that photo.net was their second choice.

 

This result is inconvenient to those in the forum who don't like photo.net and want to have an independent site; so they go back all the way to July 2000 to find a poll that shows that people preferred staying on LUSENET to moving to photo.net, and interpret this as a thumbs down for photo.net in the current situation, when LUSENET is no longer a viable option.

Brian, you insist on referring to the December "poll" which was clearly not a poll! It was not a poll! Q-Tuan took the danged poll! Get over it.

 

Incidentally, I noticed that many of the Greenspun Lusenet forums are still up and running and active as we speak, on the Greenspun server. So why the big rush to get us here?

Wayne, actually I've not called the December discussion a "poll"; I any of my postings on that subject, I've consistently referred to it as a "discussion" or as a "thread" -- if this is important to you. If you find one where I have, it is rather the exception.

 

Although not an official poll, the December 2001 thread, with 50+ different people posting, is the only recent comprehensive sounding of opinion on the subject, and a great deal more relevant than the "official" poll to which you guys keep pointing that is now two years old and on the now moot question of whether to stay on LUSENET. Even back then, with nothing impelling a change, 35% of the people said "let's move", and another 5% said "maybe".

 

And what about LUSENET? Yes it is still running. But try sending a mail to the person listed as supporting it. I know the result you will get, because I tried. And do you know where people turn when they can't get a response. Answer: to the various photo.net mailboxes, which means the photo.net staff. philip.greenspun.com was moved to the photo.net servers a long time ago.

 

Right now, if greenspun.com went down, I think it would probably be ME that would bring it back up again -- pretty ironic since I would only be supporting the arguments that the move to photo.net was "rushed".