Beyond ImagePro: the Future of PhotoNet

<p>The sudden demise of ImagePro (I was not a user) brings up the broader and infinitely more important question of what exactly is going on at PN with respect to bringing a revised and enhanced website online. This has been promised to Members for the better part of two years now. To the best of my recollection, management originally promised to have a new site implemented by the end of 2013. Early in 2014, Glenn Palm issued a statement that the implementation target date had slipped to the end of February, 2014. Since then I am not aware of any progress reports from management on the matter which, at a minimum, is a shabby way to treat dues paying Members. I hope that I am wrong about the absence of timely progress reports. If I have missed them, I trust someone will direct me to them and I will stand corrected.</p>

<p>I do recall that during the Spring of this year, there was a PN Member who 'boasted' in a forum post that he had been charged by management with overhauling the ratings system, that he had completed his work, and expected the revised rating system to be implemented within a couple of weeks. When I saw this post, I sent an inquiry to Glenn but have never received a reply. Obviously, a new rating system has not been introduced.</p>

<p>I have a couple of theories about what is going on that I will throw out to get the discussion rolling:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>As PN got into the design of the new website, they came to realize that doing it right would cost far more than Names Media Inc. was willing or could afford to spend on it. They have decided to junk the new site and hope that, by not mentioning it, we (Members) will eventually forget that it was ever on the table.</li>

<li>A second possibility is that the Names Media Inc. fell behind in their progress payments to the company that was developing the new website (whoever that is) and, that company has ceased working on the new site because of non-payment. Again, perhaps NM & PN have chosen to stonewall on informing us that there will never be a new website in hopes that our memories of past promises will fade.</li>

</ol>

<p>Some will say I am being far too Machiavellian in my speculation. But, if so, why has there been such an extended, deafening silence on progress reports for nearly 10 months now. Things don't add up. Nothing rings true. </p>

<p>I have argued for a long time (in these forums) that PN will never be rehabilitated as long as Names Media is the owner. Their business model has nothing to do with photography. They are only interested in having us (Members) provide free content to the website so that they can sell advertising based on the website traffic our content creates. In addition, they milk us for membership dues along the way. PN needs to be owned by an enterprise that has a passion for photography. Until that happens, PN will continue to languish or, even worse, experience a sudden, abrupt demise as ImagePro did last week.</p>

<p>When I have said negative things about Names Media in the past, Glenn, Cara, Bob Atkins, and Lex Jenkins have staunchly defended this mini-conglomerate. However, if Glenn's comments in the ImagePro thread are to be believed, he was totally blindsided by the ImagePro demise. One wonders if Names Media is treating them as shabbily as it is treating PN Members.</p>

<p>It is apparent that the future of PN is no longer in the hands of PN's management. Names Media is calling the shots and they are the ones that are jacking us around. It is time that we demand accountability from NM. I hope that each of you who reads this post will reply in to it in one of three ways:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Tell me I should either accept PN just as it is or get the hell out of Dodge; in other words, love it or leave it.</li>

<li>Join in my request (demand) that Names Media tell us exactly what is going on.</li>

<li>Provide your own analysis of what is going on.</li>

</ol>

<p>We have a right to demand accountability that has been sadly lacking for many months now. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"When I have said negative things about Names Media in the past, Glenn, Cara, Bob Atkins, and Lex Jenkins have staunchly defended this mini-conglomerate."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no interest in NameMedia one way or another and don't recall ever defending or attacking NameMedia. I'm not an employee of photo.net or NameMedia. I'm just a member like you and a volunteer moderator on some forums.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I do recall that during the Spring of this year, there was a PN Member who 'boasted' in a forum post that he had been charged by management with overhauling the ratings system, that he had completed his work, and expected the revised rating system to be implemented within a couple of weeks. When I saw this post, I sent an inquiry to Glenn but have never received a reply. Obviously, a new rating system has not been introduced."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you have a link to that thread, or recall who claimed he was involved in overhauling the ratings system? Several members, including me, have offered suggestions for an improved ratings system. But I don't recall anyone in administration publicly making such a statement or commitment to overhauling the ratings system. The last public statement of any changes to the ratings system that I can remember was when Josh was community director and there was a consolidation into a single rating, with some other minor modifications.</p>

<p>Jim I do not find you speculations Machiavellian. I feel certain that most members have by now deduced that there is a significant disconnect between the party line and what we see actually happening to the site.</p>

<p>While I could respond to your 3. I have too often in the past had such efforts met with your 1. for me to want to be bother typing the words. Whatever is going on here behind the scene with management and owners will in no way be affected by anything put forward in this thread.</p>

<p>For my part, I don't need or expect an overhaul, what ever that entails. But I do think that this is a declining site. My guess is that for the ratings and critique system to work it needs to constantly attract a certain level of new users who are motivated to take part. And it seems like it's not reaching that threshold anymore. When I started here I offered quite a few critiques that were essentially about sharing things that I'd recently learned with others that might not know about it yet. But as time goes by I think most users lose interest in the critique and rating system and focus more on the threads. To put it simply, I joined for the critiques but have stayed for the threads. Question is, if you've lost interest in the ratings and critique feature, why become a paying member?<br>

Sorry, maybe a bit off topic.</p>

<p>'Bout time someone started this discussion. I like this site, because it's one of the few where Actual Photography is discussed. I think that should be the focus here, if only to differentiate PN from dpreview. I don't think, however, that fixing the rating system will do any good. I haven't found such a system anywhere that really works. Flickr's Explore pages are full of Bright Clear Pictures, a few of which are excellent. The rest are Bright and, of course, Clear. I've wondered from time to time if the old critique circles could be revived in a way that would avoid their becoming havens of mate-rating?</p>

<p>Les, sounds like a great suggestion, the critique circle thing. I'm all for making whatever proactive moves I can make toward having the site fulfill my needs. If you have some ideas on how that could work, please share them, either in this thread or with me through a PN-message. I'd love to participate in something like that, something substantive and not tied into a numerical rating. I'd go so far as to say, for me, it's not necessarily critique (though that could be a big part of it) as much as any comment in general. I love giving my reactions and responses to photos, even if those aren't accompanied by judgments of what was done well or not and what could be improved, though I don't shy away from that either. Any kind of dialogue about our photos in particular would be welcome.</p>

<blockquote>Question is, if you've lost interest in the ratings and critique feature, why become a paying member?</blockquote>

<p>For the same reason you'd support public radio/television or your local library - simply because you enjoy the content enough to feel it's worth having around, even if you don't personally use it often (can't recall the last time I ventured into the public library, but I still support it).</p>

<p>I've learned from several of the forums here, whether I actively participate in them or not, and also enjoy looking at many of the photos. I stopped rating or asking for ratings years ago because I derived no value from it, so that part of the site has never been of much significance to me. </p>

<p>So from my standpoint, the biggest reason to join is because you enjoy the content and feel a sense of obligation to help keep it available, not because of any benefit membership provides. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>you enjoy the content and feel a sense of obligation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely, that is my only rationale for subscribing. I have never really had much interest in rating anything. The site is declining, but I have to say I see this across the board for most of the sites I look at. Only a technology/gear-oriented site keeps its numbers up (e.g. DPreview), and although these sites have a purpose (news is always of some interest) they do not provide much else of stimulation.</p>

<p>Just as a point of reference regarding upgrades to the site - I first 'discovered' it in the late 90s or early 2000s, and it appears much the same as it did then. By contrast, the site I visit that represents my local newspaper 'kept up with the times,' and it is virtually unusable now. I don't know what technology it's optimized for, but it constantly locks up. loads extraordinarily slowly, and I've stopped trying to comment on any of the stories because of the time it takes to do so. On the other hand, photo.net never gives me a bit of trouble. Keeping up with the latest technology isn't always the most beneficial option.</p>

<p>Bill has put it exactly the way I feel about it.</p>

<p>All my news paper sites have been "improved" to the point of imbecility on the perhaps correct assumption that the audience has the attention span of a poisoned flea.</p>

<p>The only benefit I receive from my membership here is the increased portfolio capacity, but it is enough for me to support the site for the 'cause'.</p>

<p>So I am kind of sad that the site is declining: but, it is. I have posted here a couple of thousand times. While recently in a DP thread, with a hundred or so gear heads arguing over the the technical difference between Canon and Nikon sensors, I stated an opinion that hardly no one could ever see the difference in such pictures and that I thought the technology had long ago outstripped my ability to use it. My point was that it is the picture that counts. I was chastised by some and there was a lone voice who said I made too much sense to be on the thread. PN has value beyond that kind of silliness. It has value because there is actually some human contact here as well as lots of "No Words" postings of real, not theoretical, pictures. I don't use the ratings forum. I don't like politics on a photography site; my TVs are full of that. I like to get involved in discussions but threads that have thoughtful discourse have diminished. I have a visceral tie to this site but I keep coming back to what I think is less and less content. I agree with Jim Downs. One suggestion is to make all entry to the site through the home page and then make that page a source of information about the whole site before one gets to unified view. Mr. Palm please make you presence known on this subject if you can. Your friend and supporter. Dick Arnold</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is time that we demand accountability from NM.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if NM's accountants say to sell this site to another conglomerate who doesn't give one rats ass about photography? How and in what form will we make our demands then?</p>

<p>How much control can a subscriber exert on an administration? I've never heard of any tactics or strategies to get a faceless online entity to do something I want it to except something similar to asking to be transferred to the Retention Department to express my complaints about my bill going up WAY more than inflation dictates with my AT&T and Time Warner Cable subscription. I just saved $8 a month by doing that BTW.</p>

<p>As for the administration not doing enough for their subscribers has everyone forgotten the survey Glenn conducted to find out what subscribers want out of the site? Maybe we just need to see the PN administration doing something so we know someone's running the ship.</p>

<p>Since no one seems to notice all the content in the form of articles generated or initiated by administration, they may need to be more demonstrative by doing or communicating something more often to forum members now and then. I don't know what that would be since I don't see admin. talk much about photography. I see notifications from Clara now and then but mostly stuff I'm not interested in like Photo Contests.</p>

<p>You know from the amount and level of eloquent writing from what appears to be well educated and well read subscribers that frequent these forums why not have the subscribers buy the site and run it themselves?</p>

<p>From whom did NameMedia buy this site from? I forgot.</p>

<p>Is my use of 'whom' grammatically correct? I never am sure.</p>

<p>I find the site to be a valuable way to get and share information. For me it's sometimes a photographic cross word puzzle of the day. Just the other day had a major problem I was experiencing solved in minutes. Problems I haven't anticipated or encountered are addressed and I am forearmed when they do. I have and continue to learn a great deal from the other folks here. I try to take the time to contribute to help others. I don't hold a membership as none of the benefits would be useful for me but try to sponsor a membership for newbies that have the fire in their belly to master the craft as my way to financially support the site. Hopefully, that helps introduce new blood as well. We have some fantastic photographers on this site and it is a wonderful resource. I'm not a web/computer guy, I'm a photographer so I wouldn't even try to suggest changes in the site. I don't monitor the numbers of posts, but it seems like they have fallen off. But it still works for me. A typical post brings varied points of view from photographers that are specialized in many areas. It has certainly broadened my knowledge of photography and is present in some way in nearly every photo I take. </p>

<p>Thanks to each of you for adding you thoughts to this thread and for the PMs I've received. When I was right this post in the wee hours last night, I forgot to mention one key development. In early August, in this forum or the site problems forum, Glenn made a post in one of the threads in which he said he was seeking Members to serve as Beta Testers for the new site. I immediately sent him and email volunteering my services. I have never heard back from him. I am curious if others volunteered. Did you hear back from management. Is beta testing indeed underway? If so, were you required to take an oath saying you would not disclose that you are a beta tester? :) Sorry to have omitted this key piece of info from my original post.<br>

Lex, I did not retain a link to the post by the individual who claimed to be the architect of the new rating system nor do I have a link to the thread where Glenn solicited beta testers. <br>

I couple of comments and PMs I've received leave the impression that the 'newness' of the new site will primarily relate to the ratings system. This is not the case. I have always perceived that there would be an overhaul of the entire site including new features, cleaning out stuff that is no longer relevant, improving navigation etc. <br>

I agree with the observation of supporting PN for the same reason we support Public Radio and TV. We do that with the expectation that we will benefit through new and enhanced programming. I am not aware of any management generated enhancements to the site for over a year now and some features (such as a monthly newsletter) have been discontinued or left to languish. </p>

<p>Tim, yes, your use of "whom" is correct in that instance. But your ending on the word "from" is wrong on two counts. First, you already said "From whom" at the beginning of the sentence, so it needs no repeating later. Second, you don't want to be ending the sentence with a preposition. The second point is tough, since we do it so often and it sounds right and familiar in a lot of cases. Just don't try it at school in Grammar class.</p>

<p>I have never enjoyed Photo.net more than when I was keeping up with the 'off topic' forum, or enjoyed it less than after that forum was discontinued. Many colourful members have drifted away and not returned and the site is much poorer in their absence. Not paying for my membership relieves me from being disenchanted by the site's direction or lack thereof or feeling manipulated in any way. I heartily recommend it!</p>

 

<p>The <em><strong>is</strong></em> a new photo.net in development. I've seen the progress so far and it looks good. The lack of announcements is probably smart since deadlines inevitably slip. If you promise for June and deliver in December people get annoyed. I don't know when Photo.net 2.0 will launch and I'm guessing that Glen doesn't either. I'm sure there's a target date, but I don't know what it is and if I did know I'd probably expect it to slip. Software development never goes smoothly!</p>

<p>I'm one of the drift aways. I used to be a subscriber, but I haven't subscribed for 3 years, at least.. I have been lurking for the last week or so just to see what has changed, if anything. Nothing has changed that I can see. <br /><br /> For me, critiques are very important. But posting on Photo.net is like tossing that photo into a big black hole. I'm not very good as a photographer, but I am enthusiastic as a photographer. There is no sense of real community. <br /> <br /> I get far more input from my Flickr account than I ever got here. And what little feedback I would get on Photo.net was the sort of advice along the lines of I should never forget or violate the rule of thirds, or that my photography properly belongs on Deviant Art. Really? Deviant Art? There is a strong feel of a BBS for a 1950's Camera Club on this site, if ever such a thing did or could occur.<br /><br /> The managers of this site need to figure out is this an "Art site", a "Gear site", a "beginner's site"? WHAT? There is no focus. Yeah it will drive some existing users away, but but I would remind the managers that as the old timer users die off, you need new people to replace them. What is the incentive to attract new users?<br /><br /> The infrastructure IS ugly and outdated. But that isn't going to save this web site all by itself. Don't place too much hope on that 'fix', if there isn't a vision of what this place should be and COULD be, it will just be a pretty empty box.<br /> Sorry to be so blunt, but this is why I'm never here any more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The managers of this site need to figure out is this an "Art site", a "Gear site", a "beginner's site"? WHAT? There is no focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glen, </p>

<p>To me, it's a 'photography site,' and photography encompasses all of those. I believe the diversity and lack of direct focus in any one area is one of its strong points. Seems to me it would attract even less participation if it was any one of those things you mention.</p>

<p>If you enjoy nature, you can participate in the 'nature forum.' If darkroom work is your thing, there's the 'digital darkroom' forum (and allow me to put in a plug for the WPPC threads that were recently started there). If you are mostly interested in action photography, there is the sports forum. If you enjoy discussing the philosophical side of things, there's a forum for that. And so on and so on. Why limit it to any one aspect of photography when there are so many?</p>

<p>I also have a flickr account, which is where I post most of my images. But they are there primarily to show family and friends who show any interest. I can assure you that many of the ratings out there are nothing more than reciprocal. I don't rate other people's stuff unless someone 'likes' one of mine, and then I'll try to find something in there portfolio to comment favorably on (and I always comment rather than just 'like'). But I've seen some very average or even poor stuff with hundreds of 'likes' in those portfolios, so it's apparent some folk are just liking everyone's stuff in hopes of some reciprocity. You can get as honest a critique on this site as any, though most people simply aren't going to take the time to give a detailed critique of someone else's stuff. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think rather than asking for critiques, the best way to improve your work is to look at the shots you like and try to emulate them. And many here would probably be glad to share at least some of their methods if you contact them directly - another benefit provided by this site.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

Per Bob, one of the original members and contributors:

 

<I don't know when Photo.net 2.0 will launch and I'm guessing that Glen doesn't either. I'm sure there's a target date, but I don't know what it is and if I did know I'd probably expect it to slip. Software development never goes smoothly!?>

 

Sure. But.... I guess that is the basis for Jim Downs's original post. There are intelligent folks participating, but so many intelligent folk have left. And PN rests on contributors (male AND female) and not just on a few who are vocal, but I do not disparage them or there might be nothing left. (To be steered to other links gets to be more and more like what I see on Facebook. Empty calories, sorry) Sure it is OK now but PN used to be more than OK. It was bright and spirited and engaging. What happened, do we need to get a committee to look into it or do we have a clue...

Certainly the absence of a guiding hand or guiding presence ( yes, Josh, you were a leader as well as photographer and I miss your touch) is being felt. If someone is running the show, one or two who is/are in charge, on salary, in the know, honchoing things, and can speak to the direction of the old Philip Greenspun spinoff, it is time for a few more action items in progress to be revealed.

I continue to come and continue to pay a membership. But I had to think about it this year... More from habit then anticipation of progress. It is a shame.

 

 

 

Buy the way, - in passing to whoever-- I am listed on my workspace as a" test user," Never quite figured that out or was asked to test anything that I recall...is that like pinning on a good conduct ribbon or what?. In other words do my observations supporting Jim have some resonance with the core of the community?

<p>The evolution of this thread highlights one of the big problems I perceive with PN in terms of communicating with its members. First, let me say that I deeply appreciate all of the volunteer work that Bob A. and Lex J. have done for PN over the years. However, as is the case with this thread, these two volunteers who, by their own admission, are not intimately involved in the management of the site, have become de facto spokesmen for PN. I know of no other commercial website where salaried management are so invisible and volunteers are charged with feeding crumbs to members/customers. <br>

I have been involved in database design and software development since 1972 and website design since 1996. I am painfully aware that there is some level of slippage in nearly every development project. However, there are best practices in terms of how to communicate with those affected by the delays that help alleviate skunk pissing contests like the one we are having in this thread. Someone from management needs to step up and share with us their Vision for PN 2.0 and provide us with some understanding of the monumental delays that are plaguing the implementation of 2.0</p>

<p>Bob: In my opinion, the announcement of target dates for this or that is way less important than updates regarding the projects that have been completed and regarding those still under way. I don't think that any of us expects those directly involved with the planning and implementation of the revised site to be able to provide accurate predictions regarding target dates.</p>

<p>What I value most about PN is that it is a site dedicated to photography. Sure it is not a flashy, colorful, gee-whiz site--but it is a serious, open minded, deep and in for the long haul site. The web is flush with short termers full of flash and vinegar, who will be gone by sunup. Here we can pontificate, ask, debate, advise, warn and yes--even show our pictures, knowing full-well that we are talking to people like us, who care about photography. You wont find "2 thumbs up," "rad," "cool," or other meaningless drivel here; you won't find a devotion to fads and fashion.<br>

Most of all I appreciate PNs maturity and stability.<br>

<br />Thank you all-- lex, Bob, Ellis, and all the others.</p>

<p>If it works, don't fix it!!!!</p>

<p>I'm sorry that people are leaving, but I don't know what to do about it.</p>

<p>This is a complex site. I would leave it alone as much as possible, lest more leave.</p>

<p>As far as ratings systems, no system pleases everybody. The best photographers here are generally fairly indifferent to ratings, anyway, although there are exceptions.</p>

<p><strong><em>How much is the site worth?</em></strong></p>

<p>I don't know, but it is worth a heck of a lot more than the 47.0692 cents per week that I pay as a regular member. That is about 6.86813 cents per day--a bit over a nickel a day.</p>

<p>In spite of the warts, Photo.net is still quite a bargain. It could use a lighter human relations touch, but what organization couldn't?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>