What happened to photo.net?

Just a wild guess: who wrote what's below, and how long ago ? And since then has it changed ? And if not, why not ?

<p>

"I suspect good photos get higher ratings by good photographers and genuine and striving amatuers and lower ratings from "critics". I always check the work of each person offering a comment...and the most helpful critiques come from people who have work up. Photographers have a deeper understanding of photographic art and what it takes to create an excellent image. Critics (who are not photographers or good photographers) are not necessarily "wrong" in their opinion... they are judging based on what they like and don't like. And although perfectly entitled to their opinion -- they are speaking from personal taste (which is fine) with no understanding of what it takes to find the shot, create the shot, make decisions re: camera, lenses, lighting, composition, exposure etc. Then there is - I suspect - the sour grapes syndrome. Those people that like to bash a photo out of jealousy as well as show how much they know about photography technique and rules...however, oddly enough those people don't have any work to show! I'm not talking about anyone here or anyone in particular.... Just something I've noticed over the past two months.

<p>

As usual the POW becomes a forum for controversy. I was not saying non-photographers didn't have valid opinions... I was simply saying that the pattern I've seen in this forum is that the most harsh - and non-helpful and amost mean- spirited citiques are 99% coming from people who are not brave enough themselves to put work up...or are possibly the are not photographers themselves. Everyone DOES have a right to put in their two cents.... "

<p>

.......................?

Alberto, They are visibile on your site, of course. They also go

into a list of recently uploaded images that anyone can click through,

one by one. The problem is that there are quite a few people on this

site and there is no limit to the number of images you can upload on

any given day, so only a few people with high speed connections will

see them. They may be motivated to comment, but seldom do unless the

image really grabs them. Requesting a critique on your image improves

your odds somewhat, but then again, only if someone finds the image

compelling.

 

Seven, The number of critique images permitted for upload to critique

circles and elsewhere is currently four per week, at least 24 hours

apart. .

I felt I had to add to this thread. I have been a member of photo.net for little over a year and a subscriber (which just expired a couple a days ago and I plan not to renew). While I like the opportunity for feedback, what I�m finding is compared to the �real critique world� (academic institutions and galleries) time and time again my worst rated images on photo.net are the images the art world are most interested in. I guess one reason for me personally is that I do come from more an artist direction then a �photographer� point of view. Now I don�t want this to become one of those photographer�s are not artist sort of things, because I don�t believe that and I personally fight all the time for the photographers place in art. BUT I agree there is a difference between a photographer and an artist using the photographic medium.

 

Back to my point for writing this... I would say that over 90% of the members of this site are photographers and not artist using the photographic medium. That�s fine, but the problem is that the rating system and critique system give this site an impression of work being relevant to an audience. If you think about it, even bad images here get more viewers then any gallery that I go to in San Francisco. If someone actually goes through the effort of putting an image up on a web site, he/she are in the mindset they want an audience for this image. The problem is that most of the viewers here are ego driven and some IMO believe they are god�s gift to the photo world (just like most people who work in a photo store). Look, I�m not under the impression that everyone has to give an actual critique when they add a comment to someone�s image, but, �I like it� or �I don�t like it� is something you say to a friend when you are already well in the know about their work. This is supposed to be a critique site where peers help one another evolve their work. I don�t see that happening and have all but given up on this site.

 

If you don�t think photo.net needs saving, then things here are going great. If you do see problems, what I recommend is getting rid of the ratings system. You don�t need it. First that will drive all the egomaniacs out of photo.net. You don�t need them even if their images are in the top 10. Next have Photo(s) of the week. Chose two or three for every image category (fine art, landscape, portrait). Have a photographer of the week based off a portfolio (more then 10 images that relate to each other). This is where the elves can give reasons for why the person was chosen. Third, allow people to delete others comments off their images. If someone doesn�t like what someone has said about their work, fine, let them delete the critique. So what if someone only keeps the positive ones. They are not doing any disservice to the viewers. When you go in to a gallery, you do not see posts from everyone that has visited. If people know that their comments can just be taken off, I think they are more likely to actually give a reason why they are writing what they are. I would personally keep a comment that was unfavorable but told me why in a relevant way, then someone who write �I see no point to this� or �are you kidding?�.

 

If photo.net were really about a community to learn and share in, then there wouldn�t be any competitive aspects. You are not teaching anyone anything with the way the system is now. You are just creating egos and are sending people in the wrong direction with their work. I have seen some contributors here with great potential only to change their work because they started getting better ratings and nice comments. Two of them were trying to get in to top art schools in their relative countries (personal emails with them divulged this information). If they had a portfolio of their original work fine tuned a bit, there would have been no issue for them IMO. Instead people in this community who seem to be so focused on technicalities and female flesh, turned their work in to tired old "been done a hundred times" (which seems to be the prefered photos on this site)images lacking any meaning, style and artistic value. Consequentially, they both didn�t get in to school. Is photo.net all to blame? No. But this system, which is supposedly here to teach and help fellow photographers, did fail them.

 

Look at Loreleiah Velvety�s old work (she has kept all her work up since her first image) compared to her newer images that she started getting all positive comments (the type of comment that just inflates ego and not say anythimg about the image) and you will see what I mean. (I don�t mean to turn this in to a critique of her work but I think it represents the point I�m trying to make.) She started out very new to making images. Her ideas were great but her images a little rough. Then her style and technique started to really improve. The problem is then people really started to give "I like it" and great ratings when her images became more technical, commercial and showed more flesh. Her ideas (which are the most important part of an image) have started to be pushed aside. Again IMO photo.net is failing this young photographer who wants to be an artist, not a commercial photographer.

 

Thank you Cristopher for your comment. I almost totally share your points. I tried to touch this point of photographer as an artist on a post in this thread. Instead, sometimes if not always, the signals seen on photonet speak about photographer vs. artist. Also I had the feeling that creativity could die if improperly exposed. Or it can be turned in other directions (due to popular demand). Anyhow, the thread discussed other issues finally.<BR><BR>

I just wonder how a painter's community would look like. Would they talk about brushes, dyes, canvases, trendy techniques? The most hype colour, the latest rule o 3rd available? And the most (say) Picasso like paint would be a top rated paint? I don't know, maybe they do. I just feel that, sometimes, a photographic creation is treated just like a sum of technical ingredients. Which is at least unfair.<BR><BR>

And ratings? Just competition, a concept that drives the world. It's just a reflection of our egos actually, we need numbers to compare. Even art, even feelings, even creativity. Even egos :)<BR><BR>

Why should we care who votes or why as long as we are winners.

Well from my experience, when I am around other artist and not photographers, content is the most important factor in critiquing art. More specifically content and execution. Yes technique falls in the execution part, but what fascinates me about photographers is this obsession with technique, copying and rules of what a photo is. There is science and mechanics involved with photographing, that is how it was created (by scientist), but it seems that most photographers can only related to that part. They obsess about technology and mimic what they have seen. Then at the same time, photographers expect their images to be welcomed in to the art community as �legitimate� art. All the while most of these same photographers are scoffing at painters, sculptures, etc as being wacky and not in touch with reality based on not understanding the painter�s work. It seems to me that photographers want it both ways (and maybe see a naked woman as a bonus). When I�m around non-photo artist (and I have been around many types so it�s not me just being lucky with my company), there is this passion for content and execution that I don�t see with photographers. They don�t go around asking if they turned this work in to black and white would it look more artsy or call their work fine art because there is a nude body in it or something amazing because it�s high speed macro work. They are more concerned about getting their point across. They might think that a piece is too dark or light, but they accept that the maker of the piece did it for a reason and try to figure it out. Here on photo.net, if an image doesn�t fit the notion of a photograph, it is considered a failure and is graded so by the majority. With non-photo artist, if the point doesn�t come out, the piece isn�t successful. I think if you gave the majority of images here to non-photo artist, you would see a very different set of rules applied and many people at the top of the group here as well as the bottom, would be flipped around. Again, hey, if photo.net is for photographers fine, then all this makes sense. But I think that most people here are trying to be artist and just don�t have the foundation to do that. The problem and my concern becomes that the amateurs and beginners here who are trying to do work are being lead astray, that is why I have told all intro photo students not to put up work here and/or not to take the comments and ratings as actual representation of being successful or not in their piece. I say this to them not because art is subjective (which is the easy cop out that most photographers like to say) because it�s not. Art does have a set of rules and history. The problem is that it�s so subtle that one who hasn�t been given experience or taught this thinks art is a free for all. It is not.

 

Now again with the ratings� If this were something that really worked, wouldn�t academia use it? I mean it would have been so much easier for me to walk in to class and just say, �3..3..5..6..7�. You could argue that grades the teacher gives are an equivalent, but they are not. Grades are based not on how well or popular you work is, but how you have progressed throughout the semester. If a student gets from point A to point B and has progressed in their understanding of whatever the class is teaching and has applied that to their work, then they receive a good grade. If there has been no progress, even if their work is outstanding, they will not get an A.

Excuse me for bumping in like this. But when I came across this thread I read some things I really had to reply to. And this is already the first example of a statement I want to oppose.<P>"While on the whole I will regret his departure, I won't miss his relentless demands for improvement of the site mechanisms at a pace that is beyond our capacity and to a level of perfection that we can never achieve." Said Brian Mothershead.<P>I completely disagree here. I strongly believe that critique is a necessity. A society, wether in a country or on a site like this, can not survive (regarding photographers leaving) or improve (regarding fixing the flaws), cannot do so without critique.<P>The people in charge are probably competent people, but they are not competent enough if they do not listen to the people that inform them on the problems. Now I'm not saying anyone isn't listening, but when I hear B. Mothershead say that "While I realize that "ratings abuse" is infuriating to the people who feel victimized by it, abuse is not a very important problem on the site, in my opinion. And the only reason it is a problem at all is because people get so worked up about it." <I>then</I> I do get the feeling that something is being ignored in some way.<P>What's my plan? I don't have a plan. Photosig is a lost case, I did try, but you just get opposed by people that think it is useless to try to change anything. Philippe said it isnt a problem to save the world, but it is to change people. But in this case the people make the world of Photo.net. I kind of believe in reason, and in arguments. And in the possibility of making people come to their senses. So it is not about changing people it is about convincing them. The problem isnt that there is Marc being "tiring" (with which I do not agree) but that there are too few Marcs! YES (what a though :-D) But yes. I come from the Netherlands, the last couple of years we are dealing with this phenomenon called useless violence. For example a student got murdered a couple of weeks ago by a person. Why? Because he insulted this person. How? By saying to this person that he should have more respect for older people as he came driving by on a motorcycle or something with a high speed. How could this person kill the other with a great number of people standing by? BECAUSE they were standing by... watching, saying nothing... why? Good question. What I try to say with this is that if the members of this community do not stand up and say what they feel and critique the system where there are flaws, nothing will change. (I do not know how much the admins have changed here since the beginning as I am not much present here, simply because I think this site is not very transparant, I cant find my way here, could be me) but it's that's not really the point regarding my ideas.<P>Now to continue; the critique system is supposed to filter out all the good images and let the bad ones go down the drain. Two things, one has already been mentionned 1) sure good photos get to the top pages, BUT not all of them and as someone said, a lot of the good photos get lost, and it is more like some good photos having the lucky chance to get to the top, and many don't. 2) it are probably the more interesting photos, the more controversial ones in terms of aesthetical apreciation that get lost, the ones that are not really perfect but that show of great creativity and talent. This is a shame. But yet it is confirmed by Christopher who said "While I like the opportunity for feedback, what I�m finding is compared to the �real critique world� (academic institutions and galleries) time and time again my worst rated images on photo.net are the images the art world are most interested in.". A way to solve this I think is to create (as on Psig) categories. The members will jump into their favorite categories, and discover the "talents" so to speak and can then put the attention on these photos, by mentionning them in forums.<P>The point of a site like this should not be confirmation or affirmation but discussion. Even the quality of Darwin Wigget's work should be a point of discussion! (example)<P>BUT the problem remains that the majority of people tend to be conservative. (let me take photosig as an example) they like receiving green thubms. It's a game to them, it has got nothing to do with receiving feedback. And those who join the community because it pretends to be a community that is about feedback are dissapointed, and critique the system hoping to change it... but the community remains a composition of people of whom the majority are blinded by green thumbs, and here probably by high ratings. I suppose that you can not function in such a community if you are not mundane enough... but the battle will be lost in advance, if those who are in the position to change the way the members are directed - the admins - declare critiquing a source of annoyance instead of a source of inspiration for inovation.<P>Best regards,<BR>Julien

Excuse me for bumping in like this. But when I came across this thread I read some things I really had to reply to. And this is already the first example of a statement I want to oppose.<P>"While on the whole I will regret his departure, I won't miss his relentless demands for improvement of the site mechanisms at a pace that is beyond our capacity and to a level of perfection that we can never achieve." Said Brian Mothershead.<P>I completely disagree here. I strongly believe that critique is a necessity. A society, wether in a country or on a site like this, can not survive (regarding photographers leaving) or improve (regarding fixing the flaws), cannot do so without critique.<P>The people in charge are probably competent people, but they are not competent enough if they do not listen to the people that inform them on the problems. Now I'm not saying anyone isn't listening, but when I hear B. Mothershead say that "While I realize that "ratings abuse" is infuriating to the people who feel victimized by it, abuse is not a very important problem on the site, in my opinion. And the only reason it is a problem at all is because people get so worked up about it." <I>then</I> I do get the feeling that something is being ignored in some way.<P>What's my plan? I don't have a plan. Photosig is a lost case, I did try, but you just get opposed by people that think it is useless to try to change anything. Philippe said it isnt a problem to save the world, but it is to change people. But in this case the people make the world of Photo.net. I kind of believe in reason, and in arguments. And in the possibility of making people come to their senses. So it is not about changing people it is about convincing them. The problem isnt that there is Marc being "tiring" (with which I do not agree) but that there are too few Marcs! YES (what a though :-D) But yes. I come from the Netherlands, the last couple of years we are dealing with this phenomenon called useless violence. For example a student got murdered a couple of weeks ago by a person. Why? Because he insulted this person. How? By saying to this person that he should have more respect for older people as he came driving by on a motorcycle or something with a high speed. How could this person kill the other with a great number of people standing by? BECAUSE they were standing by... watching, saying nothing... why? Good question. What I try to say with this is that if the members of this community do not stand up and say what they feel and critique the system where there are flaws, nothing will change. (I do not know how much the admins have changed here since the beginning as I am not much present here, simply because I think this site is not very transparant, I cant find my way here, could be me) but it's that's not really the point regarding my ideas.<P>Now to continue; the critique system is supposed to filter out all the good images and let the bad ones go down the drain. Two things, one has already been mentionned 1) sure good photos get to the top pages, BUT not all of them and as someone said, a lot of the good photos get lost, and it is more like some good photos having the lucky chance to get to the top, and many don't. 2) it are probably the more interesting photos, the more controversial ones in terms of aesthetical apreciation that get lost, the ones that are not really perfect but that show of great creativity and talent. This is a shame. But yet it is confirmed by Christopher who said "While I like the opportunity for feedback, what I�m finding is compared to the �real critique world� (academic institutions and galleries) time and time again my worst rated images on photo.net are the images the art world are most interested in.". A way to solve this I think is to create (as on Psig) categories. The members will jump into their favorite categories, and discover the "talents" so to speak and can then put the attention on these photos, by mentionning them in forums.<P>The point of a site like this should not be confirmation or affirmation but discussion. Even the quality of Darwin Wigget's work should be a point of discussion! (example)<P>BUT the problem remains that the majority of people tend to be conservative. (let me take photosig as an example) they like receiving green thubms. It's a game to them, it has got nothing to do with receiving feedback. And those who join the community because it pretends to be a community that is about feedback are dissapointed, and critique the system hoping to change it... but the community remains a composition of people of whom the majority are blinded by green thumbs, and here probably by high ratings. I suppose that you can not function in such a community if you are not mundane enough... but the battle will be lost in advance, if those who are in the position to change the way the members are directed - the admins - declare critiquing a source of annoyance instead of a source of inspiration for inovation.<P>Best regards,<BR>Julien

I agree with JS, insofar as I, too, think criticism of the status quo is healthy and necessary. And I appreciate what Christopher Lovenguth is saying re: art vs. technique, art vs. craft I suppose, but have to point out, through sheer devilment if nothing else, the circularity in his assertion that artists are primarily interested in content, and photographers in technique. As he says himself: "... I think that most people here are trying to be artist and just don't have the foundation to do that." - this surely is the point: you need to speak the language to say anything meaningful. For artists, that means you need to have a grounding in what has gone before, a knowledge of the symbolism which is understood by (a) other artists and (b) the society in which you expect your art to work, which, if you are honest, includes your fellow artists and critics. If you don't speak the language, no-one can understand. If you want to invent new language, you need to start off with an understanding of current language, or at least some sort of common ground with your audience.

 

I would venture that, for me, without wishing to put any noses out of joint, that art which is only meaningful to artists of a particular school is always going to be irrelevant to the majority (though it may prove very important eventually), and it's evident that some artists derive satisfaction from the exclusivity of their work (which is perfectly fine, of course.)

 

So it is with photography - there are basic assumptions people have about photographs, and it's fine to challenge those assumptions but, to be taken seriously by photographers and those who hold the assumptions, you need to speak the language. In photographic terms that generally means a certain mastery of technique, and in that it differs little from art - it's all so much more credible to the lay person if there's some evidence of technical ability (or draftsmanship). As with painting or poetry or music, there's always

the risk of an inspired and competent artist being dismissed as merely

unskilled by an audience who don't understand the message, if the artist chooses to throw convention to the wind and produce work which

may be seen as technically careless or un-accomplished. An artist may choose to narrow his or her audience this way but, having thus chosen, there's no point at all in whining that people don't "get it". If an artist wants people to "get it" then that artist has to speak their language, or at least take the trouble to teach them a new language.

 

Artists, of all people, should understand that symbolism is an unavoidably pervasive and essential aspect of human thought. A lot of this symbolism goes unexamined. Perspective, for example: that way of representing depth in a flat image is artifice, but it's ingrained, accepted, widely-understood artifice (and it's informed by photography, lately.)

 

Painting down the years has embraced many conventions, as has music, as has poetry, and all ground- and rule- breakers tend to be seen in their own time as merely not very good, except possibly by a pretentious few who are dead scared that they might reveal their ignorance if they say "what the hell is *that*?", and a vanishingly small number of people who happen to be on the same wavelength as the artist, assuming the artist isn't just cynically exploiting the dead-scared people.

 

Getting back to photos, I would say that there are photos on photo.net which challenge stuffy and restrictive conventions about what a photo should be like, and which *do* work, for a reasonable sized audience - obviously they're still going to attract censure from those (larger number of people) with a checklist of "good photo" qualities and for who the image has no immediate impact, but that's always going to be the case. I agree that it's a shame if the rating system reduces the audience for such pictures.

Man, how refreshing to read the latest posts in this thread ! Glad to see that a few souls still believe there is some value in criticism...

<p>

One thing I totally agree with, besides all JS wrote, is this phrase from Christopher: "If photo.net were really about a community to learn and share in, then there wouldn�t be any competitive aspects. You are not teaching anyone anything with the way the system is now. You are just creating egos and are sending people in the wrong direction with their work."

<p>

That's undoubtedly true ! Yes, people can still read threads and learn a few things from them - that's clear, and that's why I started reading very old threads rather than taking part in the silly rating game... But globally, this place has been overtaken by ego-driven posters and by the idea that who ever writes a detailed critique is a "know-it-all" or pontificating in a way or another. I honestly blew a fuse when I saw Richard Sintchak and Tony Dummett being told in the rodeo POW that they were basically critical simply to show off !! Puh-lease ! And if you read about any of the latest POW threads, you will find similar attacks directed to wnom ever dares to say that a few things could be a lot better... The idea that governs this site at the moment is: "Ignore what you dislike, pass, don't you criticize it !" I am well aware that this isn't (at all) what photo.net's administration wants, but that's what's happening. If you want to be critical about any picture nowadays, make sure 1) that you are not interrupting any pic-celebration-party, and 2) that you have no uploads for people to retaliate ! Then you can be sure to be called an a****hole by half the population if you dare to find a weakness in an image !

<p>

Have a look at about half the POWs on this site: ok shots, even good shots, yes, but most of the time clearly not the best shot the photographer has uploaded, and very very very often pictures that are far from outstanding, to say the least. One may agree or not with statement, and conveniently, art will be called "subjective" at the end of the day. Well, I have a bad news: art is NOT 100% subjective. Only preferences are, and that makes a huge difference ! When I dared to say that a certain image on this site was pure crap, I was told that "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" ! Sure ! And if the beholder is blind, does it matter...?

<p>

Now a glance at the CRITIQUE CIRCLES... WHAT A FABULOUS IDEA ! Thanks, photo.net. BUT... If I remember well, Bob Atkins was one of those who promoted the idea, and he did at that time mention that there should be no ratings involved... Am I not correct ? Well, when one now uploads a picture to a critique circle, if I'm not mistaken, it appears to many people who aren't in the circle as well, and this whole crowd is set free to play their rating games again... I registered in one of the critique circles with a very clear idea on my mind: I would'n rate any picture within the circle below 5 - meaning 5 and above or no rating recorded at all, and each time I provided a clear explanation of my opinions, and even took time to work in PS on some member's works... What was the result like ? I received 3s and nonsensical justifications by those I dare to criticize a bit too much... What's the point ? Why would I bother critiquing such a person's work again ? One particular picture I'm refering to, was really a 2 by any standard you could apply. The photographer was an obvious beginner. And that's the "thank you" you get...? Sorry, I don't buy that kind of attitudes. When I see it, I walk in another direction, and if I see no good direction anymore, I leave. All this is daily stuff on PN. EVERYONE knows about it. Question: why do we need to have ratings involved at all in critique circles ? Is it just to encourage people to be the same kind of narro-minded ego-maniacs this site is becoming famous for ? Another question: why can't we get rid of ratings in these circles AND LET THE GROUPS BE FORMED BY THE MEMBERS...?

<p>

You know what ? When I need a real opinion from photonetters nowadays, I e-mail to 3 photonetters, and I generally - lately - get their reply via e-mail, and you don't believe how smart their comments are compared to what I get on this site most of the time. So, tell me, what's wrong with getting rid of the ratings AT LEAST in the critique circles, and to form your own group of people whose opinion you value ? The circle would be open to anybody to READ, but no ratings, and you would need to apply if you want to get in... Elitism ? Not at all. Just trying to leave the trash at the door, that's all. Not letting ego-maniacs interfere with the successful and constructive direction set within a circle seems to be of primary importance. Let the egos in, and they'll eat you all up in a glance. They will praise to death any crappy image simply because they have no idea what's a good picture, or maybe with the hope of some sort of returned favor. Add the ratings to this, and your critique circle is dead.

<p>

Learn photography on photo.net ?! Forget it. Those who taught me something on this site are all well-mannered and well behaved people, and they

have all more or less left the site recently. Why ? Because a subway is a subway, a school, a school, and a museum, a museum. Their words, and in some cases their works too, belonged respectively in a school and in a museum - NOT in a subway.

<p>

If the aim is to educate people, you can't afford to lose one by one those who already had an artistic education, and who meant well. You have to build areas on the site, where real criticism is displayed and valued - with no ratings involved. You have to put up these member favorite galleries you were talking about. You have to create a space to share opinions and informations where ego has no say, and you have to exhibit these areas as well as great photography. Create a "Critiques of the week" section. Make sure you have categories and POWs seleted more carefully IN EACH CATEGORY. Ban from participating in POW forums those who can't post reasons for their likes and dislikes. You don't need moderators, you need bouncers. With all this in place and perhaps a few other things, you will see photo.net attracting more and more interesting and knowledgeable people, and these people and the whole constructive criticism process will get you hundreds of new people willing to actually make something great of this place - just like all the people who posted in this thread dreamed it would be.

<p>

The alternative choice is continue blindfolded in a subway, and to have more and more people leaving - disgusted and ashamed for the time they spent here trying to help.

<p>

If you decide to imlement some of the ideas I developped above, I will remain a member of this site, and continue to be a tiring member, but if all the contents of this thread (above) make no sense to photo.net, then I really don't think I should waste anymore of my time to chase windmills. If I have only bad ideas, why impose them to the site any longer ?

<p>

Your call, Brian. Your announced changes to the rating system seem to be on the way, as well as a few other things - categories, curators, etc. Good. Great. Maybe the above can give you a few ideas of other potential improvements... I hope so. Anyway, my criticism was never meant in a negative way. The site just needs to find better ways to educate people - if that's the goal... So I do hope you see my point. I sincerely hope to see things getting better at some point. I wouldn't have spent so much time on this site, if I wasn't genuinely interested in making this a better place. Maybe something worth considering... Regards.

Marc, I've given a lot of thought to posting a new thread asking what

happened to critique circles. Yours is the first in depth evaluation

of why it didn't work for you. It's possible many others had exactly

the same experience, but I expect that the real story would be a very

wide range of reactions, including reasons for posting only once or

twice or never showing up at all.

 

I have no idea why half the people never showed up in my group and why

half of those that did posted once or twice and stopped. I think it

had more to do with their overall activity level on photo.net rather

than their dissatisfaction with the group. So my first comment would

be that if groups are reformed in the future - and I hope they will be

- members need to commit to the group and should be replaced if they

are no longer active.

 

Two members were active but dropped out after a month or so - one

posted reasons as personal, the other simply stopped. That left us

with one serious novice and four advanced. We continued for some time

and I think learned a lot from each other, especially the novice whose

improvement has been a delight to watch.

 

Only one person, me, rated within the group. It was sporadic and was

never discussed. It may be that some members were upset with a

criticism now and then, but I doubt it, but it's clear to me that the

lack of low ratings was a benefit to the group.

 

So why is the group pretty much inactive? I think in part it's

because our comments got predictable, but I also suspect that for

some, inactivity in the group was part of a reduced activity level in

the site. When group members delete or hide their portfolios from

public view, when they post elsewhere how discouraged they are with

the obvious ridiculous criteria being used to select many of the top

photos, when they go to some trouble to set up another web site in the

hopes that they can do right what this site is doing wrong, than

changes really do need to take place soon, given that this is not a

group of misfits, but a group of photographers formed by management

whose interest in critiques surely qualifies them as desirable members

of the community.

 

I have volunteered to help maintain these circles because I think they

can be a valuable cog in the wheel, but I suspect that there is

little, if anything, practical that I can do unless I get some serious

programming training and move to Boston.

 

Somebody please explain to me how this iste, when it was much smaller,

could afford five paid staff, and now, despite more members writing

more $25 checks, can't even afford to pay Brian's salary. The

economies of scale here mystifies me. Until that issue is addressed,

nothing will happen. .

<em>Somebody please explain to me how this site, when it was much smaller, could afford five paid staff, and now, despite more members writing more $25 checks, can't even afford to pay Brian's salary. The economies of scale here mystifies me. Until that issue is addressed, nothing will happen.</em>

 

<p>The answer is pretty easy. When the site had 5 full-time people, none of them were being paid market salaries. They were working during the Internet boom in the hopes of realizing a return on their stock options. Despite this, photo.net was burning money, with the principals and their friends and relatives putting in a significant amount of cash to cover the negative cash flow.

 

<p>Two years down the road, the site now generates around $3000-$4000 per month from subscriptions, and a bit more than that from advertising (clickthroughs and revenue shares from sponsors like Adorama, Ritz Camera, etc.). After paying ISP charges and other non-discretionary expenses, we have around $2000-$3000 per month left in positive cash flow, which currently goes into a reserve for eventual upgrade and replacement of the hardware rather than into salaries. (Considering the skill-set required, it wouldn't be much of a salary, in any case.)

OK, now I understand.

 

I know better then to ask for a projected date for seeing the

ratings imporvements, so instead I'll ask if there is anything that

volunteers can do to help free up your time so you can work on

these improvements.

Carl mentionned a lot of things about critique circles, and I wrote another 50 lines about all sorts of things that I thought were reasonably important. Then Carl wrote 1 line about the $$ problem, which is of course an important problem.

<p>

Brian wrote a 7 lines reply about $$, and not a single word about all the rest.

<p>

My interpretation of this: $$ have become such a problem, that all the rest has become secondary.

<p>

I have no solution to the $$ problem - not even dumbing 25$ to help sustain a subway. But what I do believe is that an amazing number of people (and that includes me) would be ready to pay up for a site that wouldn't be too much of a subway, or say, where people were not allowed to spit on the floor and throw down the walls. What I have learned as well as a photographer, in the last 15 years, is that nothing matters but your portfolio. If it is great, or at least better than your competitor, you get the job. If not, you just don't.

<p>

Regards.

Marc:

 

"I have no solution to the $$ problem"

 

There's always becoming a supporter ... which you don't seem to want to do.

 

"If you decide to imlement some of the ideas I developped above, I will remain a member of this site"

 

Or ... else? Is this another trademarked Marc G. threat to take your ball and go home? Looks like it.

Marc, making the site work from a financial point of view is currently my main goal. This would be the case whether photo.net were a non-profit or a for-profit corporation; either way, it has to be able to pay its bills and payroll.

 

At the moment it doesn't. The reasons that the site hasn't collapsed, as hundreds of other Internet sites have, are (a) the cash flow is positive so nobody has to be convinced to put in more cash; (b) there are still people willing to work without salaries in return for future prospects; © we don't need to upgrade or replace any hardware immediately, and (d) the people who invested in the site don't want to pull the plug, even though they aren't prepared to sink any more money into it.

 

But if we had a big setback, like a major equipment failure, or the loss of a major sponsor or a substantial drop in the current subscription level, or (the most probable) one or two people working on the site giving up -- it would be all over.

 

In order for the site to be viable over any length of time, we must at least double the revenue -- and we have maybe twelve or eighteen months to do this.

 

Right now the Gallery generates most of the subscriptions. And the Forums and the static content (equipment reviews, the Learn section, ezShop, etc), especially the parts centered on shopping, generate most of the advertising-related revenue. The site needs to expand both.

 

At present, the Gallery daily receives around 3 million hits, about 1000-1200 new photo uploads, around 3000 ratings per day, and several hundred photo comments. Probably more than half of the 80000 to 100000 visitors per day who visit the site as a whole are attributable to the Gallery. This level of activity produces an average of 4 new subscriptions per day, with about 90% of those being 1 year subscriptions rather than 3 year subscriptions. About 20% of subscriptions come within five days of registering on the site, and about 50% of subscriptions come within the first three months of registering. The longer people go without subscribing the less likely they are to to do so.

 

Now, abstract discussions about what would make the Gallery better (for the participants in the discussion) are fine. But they probably won't be implemented if the proposals don't conform with the current scale of the Gallery and if they won't contribute to a doubling of the rate of subscriptions attributable to the Gallery.

 

During the last few months, I've increased the subscription rate already by a factor of four, simply by (a) asking more; (b) giving subscribers a higher photo quota than non-subscribers and threatening to delete over-quota photos; and © taking image hosting priveleges away from non-subscribers.

 

Why do people participate in the Gallery and then subscribe? I think probably there are three main groups, with many people fitting into more than one of them to some degree:

 

(1) People who don't want critiques and who don't really care whether their photos are good. They see photo.net as a free photo sharing site. If they want to be able to link the photos into e-bay ads or web log sites, etc, they have subscribed since we made this a requirement. These people are more or less satisfied with the site, except when it is slow. This group doesn't care about ratings or comments all that much. This group generated a fair number of the recent subscribers, for the image-hosting, and it also generates a lot of the traffic.

 

(2) People who want to give and receive critique and feedback and to engage in a community for artistic discussion. These are the people who are the least satisfied with the site because they don't get enough critique and feedback, and the feedback they do get is often sarcastic or stupid, or if they are interested in giving others the benefit of their experience, they get too many ungrateful, retaliatory responses. The Critique Circles appeal especially to this group, at least in theory. This group is more likely to dislike the ratings system because ratings interfere with the "learning" that they feel should be at the core of the site and because, anyway, the rating system tends to throw up as "Top Photos" pictures that cater too much to popular taste, and to overlook good but challenging photos. This is the group that participates the most in the POW discussions and in any forum discussion of the rating system. This group is the least likely to subscribe, or if they do, it is only after a long time because they feel guilty. Ironically, most of the loyal members of the Gallery are in this group, but on the whole people in this group become disenchanted after a few months and leave, without ever subscribing.

 

(3) People who want visibility, recognition, and competition. These people view photo.net as a kind of photo contest, where the prize is the visibility of being a "Top Photographer". These people don't mind the rating system; in fact, they find it absorbing and addictive, even though they may have sufficient self-awareness to realize that this is silly. But they want the rating system to be improved so that other people can't cheat and so that their chances at visibility are not spoiled by stupid or abusive ratings. These people are the most likely to subscribe, especially if they think that subscribing will increase their chances in the the contest. A lot of these people leave after they tire of the contest, or realize that other sites run contests that have more addictive features like "points" and "green thumbs". But some of the contest-oriented people prefer our "contest" because it isn't so blatant, the visibility offered here as a prize is greater, and the competition is stronger.

 

So tell me how the Gallery, as you want it to be, will generate 250 new subscribers per month, instead of the 120 we get now.

Brian, I think you've done an excellent job of articulating the problems, goals and current status of the site and its funding needs, and I believe you deserve a lot of credit for the smooth continuation of this site in the face of such an increase in usage. It's interesting that some of those most vociferous about fixing the site don't want to ante up anything more than words.

 

One thing I disagree with is when you write, "A lot of these people leave after they tire of the contest, or realize that other sites run contests that have more addictive features like "points" and "green thumbs"."

 

I think that many people simply prefer the rating system elsewhere. I still don't understand why there is a second rating besides 'aesthetics' and I'm faer from alone in believing that the use of 1,2 or 3 thumbs up/down is much clearer to people than a 1-7 (or 3-6 for those in a hurry) rating scale, even with recently improved descriptions of what those numbers represent. This is one area in which photosig really shines, I think -- even though I am not a user or supporter of that site.

Everyone who visits the site initially is a potential client, but they

should not be allowed to jump right in as full participants. That

is not to say that all long time members are assets. I think some

paying members are keeping a much larger number of potential

paying members away. Two people come to mind immediately.

All of the sudden we talk about money. While I completely understand that the site is not running by the will of gods, I may assume that any cause is lost. I mean, voices who want changes are a minority, I'm I wright? What should we bother with this discussion anyway? There will be at any time a lot of people willing to pay for their ego. I think now it is almost a perfect system for this purpose, you can even worsen it to attract new subscribers. An automated system to praise new subscribers with 'wow' comments would be a proposal. Sorry if I offend anyone, I say what I feel. <BR>And maybe a point that it will look ridiculous. Not all the members feel at ease to pay even the small amount that you request. World is large, and talents grow everywhere. I guess.

I'm confused.

 

Brian informs me that my last post has been deleted, although I

thought it was in direct response to another post. Taking

someone to task for what they do, rather than attacking them

personally, should be acceptable discourse.

 

Then Jeremy asks me in a private email who the two people are

that I have in mind that are creating problems.

 

Both these actions point directly to the problem that Marc keeps

harping on and that you both don't want to hear - that the

behavior of some members is considered by a large number of

people on the site to be detrimental, yet you do not recognize this

to be the critical problem. Mary said somewhere recently that

she knows she can go to you, Jeremy, confident that you will take

care of any abuses, but I honestly don't know what sort of abuse

she or you have in mind. Marc's post recently helped to clarify a

diffence between his interpretation of abuse (and mine) that was

different from Brian's and that is that you, Brian, needed some

kind of proof that a low rating was motivated by some sort of ill

will rather than simply being counterproductive to the best

interests of the site for any reason at all. The people who are

becoming discouraged in ever increasing number will pony up if

they think you are willing to take control of the site on this issue,

and many others instead of taking a laissez faire approach for all

but the most blatant abuses. The motives of the abusers really

isn't important. The fact that they wreak havoc is what needs to

be addressed.

 

 

Some of the policing needs to be done personally. Others

problems can be dealt with using database restrictions. There

are solutions; it's just a matter of which subway you want to

emulate. In 1959, I was a 12-year-old in Copenhagen riding the

subways without fear. Try that in NYC or near the combat zone in

Boston.

Carl, I can guess the identity of at least one of the people you are talking about, and I am afraid that I am not eager enough for subscriptions to toss him to the lions, no matter how much of a crowd-pleaser you claim it would be.

 

You and a few others have complained to the abuse mailbox about this person, and his rating behaviour has been investigated thoroughly. There is not a shred of evidence that his ratings are anything but honest, without any favoritism or other bias that can be detected. In fact, I would put this person forward as an example of the ideal rater: he rates many photos, so that his preferences are built into the rankings of hundreds of photos on this site with the ratings normally distributed around an average a little over 4, which is where the average is supposed to be.

 

One person complained that he only rated her photos 3 and 4, but when I looked at his some 70 ratings of that person's photos, I found that this was totally untrue, that the average rating was well over 5, and only a little less than the average of others' ratings, with more 5's and 6's than 3's and 4's.

 

The problem is that this person rates a lot of photos, and he tends to be among the first people to rate a photo; so people tend to remember the 3's and 4's and forget all the 5's and 6's. In fact, I am glad that there is somebody consistent and objective involved in rating photos early; otherwise the crucial early ratings would often all be high fan club ratings, and the Top Photos pages would be dueling fan clubs. It is the unpopular people like the person under discussion who actually make the rating system work.

 

Other alleged problems are that this person has no photos posted and leaves many more ratings than comments. Neither photos nor comments are currently required to participate in the photo.net Gallery. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a correlation between skill as a photographer and skill as a critic. One of the first qualifications as a critic is objectivity, and this is precisely what people lack relative to their own photos. The ratings of any objective, consistent, person should be prized, even if he has no photos posted here. If the ratings are low, one should not be looking for a reason to disqualify those ratings, but taking them into account, together with the ovarall trend of the ratings.

 

I don't believe that people are so obsessed with the ratings game that it is true that they are calling en masse for the head of anyone who rates them low, even somewhat regularly, and are withholding subscriptions because I don't deliver the head. Even if it were true that subscriptions would increase, I wouldn't do it. Sorry.

Imo, theoretically, you are right, Brian. The only really problematic raters I know of are BIAISED raters (retaliators and mate-raters). Now, a little comment about this sentence you posted in response to Carl...

<p>

"In fact, I am glad that there is somebody consistent and objective involved in rating photos early; otherwise the crucial early ratings would often all be high fan club ratings, and the Top Photos pages would be dueling fan clubs."

<p>

I agree if you say "consistent and objective".

<p>

But look carefully at the top-rated pages and do you actually see fan-club raters on top pages, or not ? I personally see a growing number of them, which seems to invalidate your point. How do I explain that ? Simple. If you are a mate-rater and you have been rated honestly by someone 4 / 4 a few times, and if your "mates" have had the same fate, what you do is e-mail your friend and somehow set-up a deal to "resist the invader"...:-) Somebody recently thought I was being targetted by somebody else, and told me via e-mail "Since this person will down-rate your stuff I have rated your shot a 6 instead of a 5... sorry for that..." Can you believe this ? Well, I can. I wasn't mad at the person who over-rated me to "balance" a potential "under-rater", but I truly thought that it made no sense at all, and told him so. If there is only one person who rates many shots honestly, it is likely that the mate-rating gangs will have resources to resist the hit, whereas honest people won't.

<p>

Now about the 2 people Carl mentionned, I suppose I know one of them, but the one I know really doesn't fit your description, Brian. Anyway, Carl mentionned about 2, but I see about 10 really problematic people, and they don't behave, at all, the way you described. Finally, when you described a person who rates A LOT of pictures on the site as being beneficial to the site, I have to disagree and say that it all depends on a few thing...

<p>

a) on how logical his ratings are in the first place

<p>

b) on which pictures he rates and does NOT rate

<p>

c) on whether he is biaised or not

<p>

Depending on these 3 parameters, the action of such rater may either be benefecial or detrimental to the site, or, most likely, quite neutral. Besides that, don't you think that the site would better have its high-rated pages determined by 100 curators than by a few (potentially biaised) people...? :-)

<p>

But anyway, I'm really a lot more worried by 10 people than by anyone who would behave the way you described. Therefore, enough on this topic.

First of all, Brian, thanks a lot for explaining the situation so clearly. It helps indeed to understand, pardon me, the mess you are in charge to deal with. I honestly have to say that I am glad not to be in your shoes after what I just read. So, hats off to you. This being said, you also asked a very clear question:

<p>

"So tell me how the Gallery, as you want it to be, will generate 250 new subscribers per month, instead of the 120 we get now."

<p>

Let me try to suggest a different strategy, based on a slightly different assessment of the reality of the 3 groups you have presented here.

<p>

The 3 groups: Group (1): I agree with what you said, and anyway I know very little about this group. Group (2): I believe most of the people I sympatize with and who posted in this thead, as well as myself, belong in this category. As you rightly said, most of the people who took part in the critique circles belong in it as well. What kind of people are we talking about - psychologically...? People who actually want to improve their photography, no matter what level they have already reached. People who LOVE images, truly and sincerely, and people like me who LIVE for photography. What is more important to any human being than what he loves ? Nothing. So, I would tend to believe that this category of people may be more demanding, but also willing to give - that's exactly what love is all about. My view is therefore that if you give these people what they want, they will most certainly pay you back for what they get. I would even go 1 step further and say: show them that they can get what they want, and charge them directly for that service a month or 2 after they have tested it ? That's money for the site. Besides that, you can create additional services for these people. Services that will both bring extra money to the site and satisfy people, and bring more people who would want these benefits as well. For example, an idea I proposed back in january, I think, would be to offer a paid evaluation of a member's portfolio - SELL critiques by experienced people basically. I have received hundreds of sincere "thank you" e-mails for critiques I wrote on the site. That means that SOME members value them. Then I personally would be ready to pay for critiques of certain pictures of mine by Tony or Ian. Why ? Because I had to stop street photography back in 93 for quite unfortunate reasons, and I would love to return to shooting the kind of pictures I see in their folders... I am sure 90% of the people in this category (2) would like to have their work critiqued by people they admire or such. Maybe half of these people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount on top of their suscription to get that kind of valued advice ? 10 top critiques for 10 USD, or 25 top critiques for 20 USD - don't you think it's worth it ? This costs strictly nothing except a bit of time to implement, I believe. Why not check the potential by simply launching a thread asking who would be interested in critiques by "pros" or (real) top photographers ? And another thread asking to pros and top photographers whether they would like to help the site by giving critiques that will be charged...? have a "Critiques of the week" page as well to show people what serious critiques are all about. It will give people the idea and envy to get such critiques, and may also (by the way) bring back a little real criticism on the site... Bare also in mind what your market opportunity looks like... Meaning that you would be, I think, the 2nd site on the net to propose such service, and the other site who does that at this point is by far smaller than photo.net. So, almost no competition. And I see THOUSANDS of potential clients. Maybe, you could create interactives forums weekly where only selected (more educated) members from photo.net would be there to answer questions that would come from any (registered) public... Or you could sell "ready-made" internet portfolio pages. Or you could open better critique circles TO PAYING SUSCRIBERS ONLY... Etc. Basically, Group (2) is imo a far larger potential or income than you suspect. You need to understand, evaluate their needs and desires, then assess the viability and then the modalities of setting up a paying system geared to give them what they ask for. If you have no time to get into this, and if you are interested in such ideas, I volonteer to help studying these opportunities - that's if you trust me to do so of course... Taking Group (2) more seriously and serving their cause - which simply happens to be serving the cause of improving people's photography skills - will at the same time raise the bar on photo.net, bring new people, and satisfy more existing members, which will all generate income. Group (3): they will still play their ego-games, but within limits defined by the site. Organize separate competitions for them, picture of the day icons, etc, what ever keeps them busy without affecting the site too much. Nothing stops you from really setting up 2 parallel top-rated pages within photo.net: a) pictures which are top-rated by MEMBERS, and b) pictures which are top-rated by CURATORS. Or by the Elves, or what ever you like along that line... Photo.net has more than enough competent people to set-up something like that at no cost except programming just a few pages... Curator's top-rated pages will also serve as photo.net's official portfolio and will allow to get maybe more sponsorship or at least more people registering based on the shock they will have looking at all the very best pictures on PN all together. The way to go about Curator top-rated pages could be that each Curator would select his own favorite gallery, as you planned, but then all curators would rate all the other curator-gallery-selected pictures (no comment needed for that purpose). If one wants to stand a chance to have his picture rated by 100 curators and see how well it will do - once it has appeared in one of the curators' gallery -, he will need to pay a fee (to basically take part in the curators top-rated challenge)... That way, you basically make extra money from having a new competition, but one that makes sense ! ...and all you will (maybe) lose, are those who will feel humiliated to be top-rated by members but not by curators (the most ego-maniac members in group 3)... Not a major loss in terms of number of people, and therefore not a great loss in terms of $$. AND a big breeze of fresh air for everyone if the jokers are gone or kept quiet within their playground... End of the day, what you need is 1) Credibility, 2) Quality critiques, 3) Be smart enough to accomodate all categories of people in one way or another, 4) Charge for extra services... and with that done, you will see $$ instead of people (and quality) leaving the subway...

<p>

(Last but not least, you really need to have raws of thumbnails for the uploads of the day, so that every one gets a few ratings and critiques... That will limit the number of people discouragd by the lack of feed-back, and there will be potential suscribers among them too. Right now, why would they help a site, when the site offers them only 1 comment per week or such ? This matter is imo an absolute priority).

Brian, I would have to say that being in the category you described that usually doesn�t pay for the service but did when I joined up, the reason I�m not renewing is because photo.net hasn�t shown me a reason to. Since I get so little out of it because of what I think is a good intention but flawed system and I don�t have to pay to begin with, why should I renew? When I put my photo up and get maybe one rating instantly from someone who gives me a 3 3 and then put this photo up on critque and get another two ratings and one statement, why put any effort in here? This is going to be your eventual problem here. Business 101 is to keep the customers you have. In a service like this where it is about information you also have to keep the customers that give back. While the plan on how to get new business and the model set up of what person is more likely to pay is sound, you're isolating the group that can most help you AND if enough of these types leave, could possible send photo.net spiraling. I don�t have such an ego as to say that without this group you will fail BUT it will be much harder for you.

 

I understand the need for profit. I understand the need for balance. But you need to understand from someone who signed up for paid service two weeks after first discovering this site and paid you out of respect for what I thought you are trying to achieve, I will not renew my service because what I thought you were trying to do here and the reality of it are NOT the same.

 

And before a comment like "taking my ball and running home" is made, don't you think for the one or two vocal people here there are not hundreds feeling the same? We are at least still holding on. Most will just give up and leave.

photo.net is so much more than an "upload, rate and critique" site. The

forums are fantastic; the input, skills and spirit in the general (not archived)

section is a whole new world a few people would do well to explore.

 

A lot of members who participate there would be very surprised to learn PN

had any problems whatsoever.

 

Concerning this thread : they deprive themselves who restrict their visits to

the Gallery and POW. I did for the first 9 months or so of my membership -

then seemed to grow out of it into the more genuine areas. I doubt any good

or professional photographer goes to the trouble of clicking on those little

rate boxes or hanging out on so-called high-rated pages. They might give and

respond to critiques, but are otherwise a touch busy putting beer and bread

on the table to worry about ratings.

I guess life on the internet is all about assuming all kinds of things about all kinds of people you know nothing about - isn't it, Seven ? :-)