Current State of Affairs on Photo.net

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Sandy Vongries, Sep 9, 2021.

  1. The traffic through the exits has been steady for years. Why argue the "site owners" are responsible? Content matters and it's steadily thinned.
     
  2. Well, the content is being thinned partly due to the disingenuous site redesign of the galleries section that the site owners instigated. Many photographers who frequently posted their photos in the galleries simply left because they could not live with the constant glitches.

    Phil Greenspun was a passionate photographer and his passion was reflected in the website he designed. That’s what attracted other passionate members that made this site into the golden era that is often referred to. The current site owners don’t seem to have the same philosophy or passion of Philip.
     
  3. Phil Greenspun was a passionate photographer and his passion was reflected in the website he designed. That’s what attracted other passionate members that made this site into the golden era that is often referred to. The current site owners don’t seem to have the same philosophy or passion of Philip.

    There was also much less to look at online 20+ years ago during that "golden age." Never posted to or commented on gallery content. The forums were once content-rich. Less so now.
     
  4. Likely so, but I’m not sure what the ramifications of that are to this discussion. 20 years ago, even if fewer photos were posted to the Internet than today, enough were posted so no one could encounter them all. We’ve always looked at what we’ve looked at.

    I think the demise of PN, or partial demise, can be and is due to a variety of factors. Some are cultural in that Facebook and Flickr type sites provide more of the kind of shallow and non-committal social media entertainment most people want than what was the PN model, which took photography more seriously. Some factors are commercial, in terms of bad administration and design of the site, getting worse as time goes on.
     
  5. Show me a better gallery site for the price of p/n. For what it does it serves my purpose.
     
    ericphelps likes this.
  6. No one said there was one. The complaint I have is not that there’s something better than PN. (If there were, I’d be there.) It’s how bad PN has become compared to its former self. I’m comfortable both making that claim and doing what I can as a member to improve things while also understanding it’s the only game in town and still being thankful for its existence, as diminished as it is.
     
  7. I'm not doing so hot compared to my former self either.
     
    ericphelps likes this.
  8. By the way, I feel non-member participants contribute financially by supplying photos and content. As a matter of fact, management provides NO content. It’s our content that keeps the site afloat and the traffic we help create and sustain that brings advertising dollars to management. I dropped my paid membership as a viable form of protest against what I see as both a callously disregarding and generally inept management.
     
    q.g._de_bakker likes this.
  9. In the few days I let my membership lapse last week there were blank spaces between some photos for what I assume were spaces for ads, but no ads.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2021
  10. I don’t know, I rarely go into galleries anymore because I find them so dysfunctional. Early on, back in the aughts, I spent most of my time in galleries, which functioned well and both facilitated and even encouraged interaction.
     
  11. Likely so, but I’m not sure what the ramifications of that are to this discussion. 20 years ago, even if fewer photos were posted to the Internet than today, enough were posted so no one could encounter them all. We’ve always looked at what we’ve looked at.

    What's not to grasp? People go elsewhere now simply because there's far more to see that's relevant. PN presently is a backwater forum site--whatever management's foibles. Curious what PN's long-term Alexa scores look like.

    Personally, I've tired of the rising percentage of scolds, cranks and pedantic boors who camp on the forums. Who needs it? Not me. Adios
     
  12. "Well, the content is being thinned partly due to the disingenuous site redesign of the galleries section that the site owners instigated. Many photographers who frequently posted their photos in the galleries simply left because they could not live with the constant glitches". Supriyo

    Some truth in a piddle way.

    However, the reality is, the various management styles, were all looking for harmonious love-ins; without challenges ,or, discourse of agreement.

    Boring, and banal,: sort of like a hippy love in with the happy stuff.

    There we are as of today ,with moderators swinging the axe of loving harmony ,....back in the day, under Greenspan, it was was the wild west....with all those interesting characters in play...and the rich photography they provided.

    Goodnight Vienna.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2021
  13. The previous owner use to contribute to the Forum and you had access to him. Not sure what is going on right now or if this site is running on Automatic. I thought you moderators had access to the owners ?
     
  14. Karim, you probably remember the heydays of the Off Topic forum. Its consquences were disastrous to quite a few members/subscribers.
     
  15. Are you speaking of Glenn?"
     
  16. It is a nice forum. Too bad not more participation, but I've seen worse.

    Who pays the bills? It can't go on for free as far as internet costs.
     
  17. I wondered why they didn't have one here. I like them.

    Will this forum go poof one day? I mean sometime soon from not having an owner?
     
  18. I do. There is an OT forum on two other websites I visit regularly, and there are almost no issues there. Then again, those are cinematography related, and I have found that DPs are much more measured and helpful than their photographer cousins. I don't know why, but it is the case.
     
  19. Although it is really irritating to see how badly the site performs as a place to show images (e.g. non existent POTW ("15 editors have chosen these photos from..." Cant they just remove these nonsensical claims?), I'm not sure the forums are any worse than they were say 10 years ago, in terms of content. Same old same stuff. Just like other photo forums.
     
  20. Still wondering if anyone has ever tried the "Purchase a Print" option.
     

Share This Page