Is forum traffic dropping?

<h2>Site Statistics (monthly)</h2>

<ul>

<li>6.0 million Visits</li>

<li>3.6 Million Unique Visitors</li>

<li>45.5 Million Page Views</li>

<li>832,209+ Registered Members</li>

<li>5,000 New Registrations</li>

<li>375k Comments/Photos Posted</li>

</ul>

<p>Above are the monthly statistics from a few moments ago. Being in my eighth year of membership I feel that the number of questions and comments posted in the four fora that I frequent has dropped off quite a lot .... or is my appetite for new posts getting out of hand?<br /> My most visited areas are Casual... , Nikon, Rangefinder ... & Medium Format, btw.</p>

<p>Do any of you guys feel the same way? If so, would you attribute it to .... lower disp income, busier lives, actually shooting more/less spare time, apathy?<br>

Yesterday (6th March) there were only 62 new questions asked (as counted in the Unified Forum)<br>

Considering the immense number of members the posts and replies are pretty much the same score or so responders.<br /> The site just seemed so much busier a few years ago. Or did I have so much more to learn back then?</p>

<p>Observation over. :-0</p>

<p>I agree, it seems ... sleepier. I chalk it up to people spending more time yammering on Facebook instead of yammering here. It is possible, I suppose, that at least a few people are actually out there making images. The very thought!<br /><br />It will be interesting to see if the new management/regime finds that the planned makeover for the site can reel some people back in, glue all of this more thoroughly to the social media services that are the current online lifeblood, and such. That's where the action is. </p>

<p>Hi Matt,<br /> I'm a died in the wool anti-facebooker and my greatest fear is that some photo sites like this (for example) get so entwined with FB that having an account of theirs becomes a condition of membership.</p>

<p>That's when I say goodbye to you all. ;-(</p>

<p>I recently lead a team of oil design engineers and the biggest hindrance to production was FB. It's so normal now that workers don't even bother trying to hide it - like it's a right of theirs to use during work!!!</p>

<p>- Rant ends-</p>

<p>Regards<br>

Clive (not at work)</p>

<p>Some forums are really dead. I only check the Olympus one about every two weeks. Even Classic Manual Camera forum has suffered a decline. I'm hooked on that one and check it every couple of days.</p>

<p>Hopefully, there are enough of us dinosaurs to keep PNet thriving as a standalone. Also, I'm thinking that winder storms and geenerally crappy weather may be a factor in the decline of posts...</p>

<p>Not to mention lousy proofreading. Dang!</p>

<p>I blame facebook, and the accessibility to it through the iPad/iPhone/android. It's the other husband in many people's lives including mine. I think there are more female photographers, but facebook is particularly addicting to females and many have dropped away from it to facebook. It's also grabbed some young budding female photographers and prevented them from experiencing the art of photography and pursuing that craft. Talking to my brothers and other guys, facebook is known as the other husband. I can't get my wife away from it. It's sad when our 3 year old is crying for mommy to play with him, and her response is always that she has to respond to status updates. I used to shoot some nights and weekends but now my nights are watching my son so she can catch up on facebook and on weekends because she didn't do any chores during the week she uses the weekend to do them now instead leaving me to watch our son instead of doing some shooting. Feels good to vent a bit. Thanks</p>

<p> Like everything else, the site needs to be revisited regularly to close and consolidate. There is a lot of fragmentation in my opinion and seemingly random brand forums. A entire forum for Minox? </p>

<p>Mmmmminox forum has 7 (yes, that's 7) posts this year - less than one per week! With only 21 responses in total ...... buzzing over there then.</p>

<p>That's certainly a mini camera forum ;-)</p>

<p>It sure seems down. But I would not blame Facebook just like that - not without a serious investigation anyway. Facebook has been around quite a few years now, and the slow-down has really been a thing of the last year. So, to me, it seems premature to point a finger at facebook, and call it a day.</p>

<p>That's not to say there is no influence from social media; it did change the way people expect to 'interact' with the internet. Forums are somewhat less direct, and less interactive than most social media. I regard p.net a community, and that's in many ways a good thing, but it is also a walled garden (even if the walls are low enough to climb). It's different enough from the social media model; and it might well be the usage model and the expectation it sets that's not pulling in enough fresh blood to p.net;</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there are enough of us dinosaurs to keep PNet thriving as a standalone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, but one has to worry about that too. I often feel a youngster on this site, and I'm nearing 40. Having the vast wealth of experience available here is a great asset, but at the same time it also means that the site might sometimes seem a bit sedate to younger people. Yes, I would not be happy if a facebook account became mandatory for p.net, but at the same time, it would be worse if p.net would ignore FB as well. It is where the action is, as Matt said. It's especially where younger people are, many talented photographers and even more not-so-talented-but-willing photographers who could benefit hugely from this site (as I have). It's where there are a huge amount of potentially new paying subscribers also. So rather than pointing fingers at social media and condemn it, have an open-minded look at it and understand what we (as a community) can learn from it, as well as p.net management having a good look how to leverage social media more (which I assume they're doing).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but at the same time it also means that the site might sometimes seem a bit sedate to younger people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> It's not about sedate. It's about the outright hostility often shown to things like phone cameras, which are what young people use. Whether that is a starting point for them or what they use forever is unclear, at least on this site, since there is such strong attitude against phone camera users. The expectation that everyone should have a pile of lenses and no kit lenses is similar - most younger people aren't going to spend a lot of money accumulating equipment when they are trying to figure out how to move out of their parents' homes. If there was more of a welcome for anyone enjoying photographing, it's possible that there would be new blood. But the way it is right now, I wouldn't even suggest the site to a young person starting out. Same for the hostile remarks about Facebook.</p>

To Jeff's excellent analysis above, I'd add the general hostile environment created by a handful of older

gentleman keyboard warriors who monopolize threads going back and forth more than a dozen times (sometimes several dozen)

trying to one-up the other(s) with clever oblique back-handed insults.

<p>Not calling willy-nilly members posts as "trolling" could help too. </p>

<p>This is a really interesting thread and I agree with you -- finding a way to make it less hostile for new photographers is an important part of growth, which we need to keep going. I also agree that there is some streamlining that needs to be done regarding forums that aren't used anymore. You've inspired me to take a sec and reach out to a few new members to say hello.</p>

<p>Jeff, in fact I agree, my choice for "sedate" was .... well, sedate. I meant it just as a nicer way to put what you said ;-) But yes, the internet isn't very kind to sites who cannot go with the times.</p>

<p>I stumbled through the PN bar door in '97 and don't like what I see today. PN back then was rowdy, smart, generous, funny, informative and tolerant. Now? Not so much. Some forums are tomb-like; others are over-moderated gated communities. PN was proto-social media back in the day. But now?<br>

It's become a bit resource poor. More to know now, for sure, but not equal effort to keep up and to build a reputation for information.<br>

There's remarkably little community building going on. No local/regional boards or forums. Minimal inclusiveness.<br>

<br />Seems a necessary question, so please, no shooting the messengers.</p>

<p><em>"Do any of you guys feel the same way? If so, would you attribute it to .... lower disp income, busier lives, actually shooting more/less spare time, apathy</em>?"</p>

<p>iI think it's a combination of everything above, that and the highly anonymous nature of this forum... </p>

<p>Retired or semi-retired photographers seem to have more time for the forums than busy young people. That may be one reason why they are not sufficiently used. Texting is quick and efficient for what it does. Considering a topic in some depth, as many do who post fairly long replies to posts, takes time. That may explain the apparent absence of younger contributors.</p>

<p>Jeff has some good points, but it is probably true that those (and there are many) who think of photography less in terms of equipment and more in terms of the challenges of making photos are not very concerned whether the photographer is using $10,000 professional cameras ands optics or a more humble cellphone. The image and how it was perceived is what counts and should be the main thing. It is fun to meet younger and less experienced photographers and to reply to their needs and questions. That does go on a lot here and it is a very satisfying feeling.</p>

<p>As for the lower posting rate, it is probably a function of various things. This time of year is a busy period for many and that may also play into the apparent slowdown. How to get more involvement? That will depend upon the strategy adopted by Namemedia. If it is just to get more numbers for advertising revenue, it may result in a lowering of the quality of the interactions and drive more serious photographers elsewhere. If that is "going with the times" it may yield a fairly predictable result and remove some of the appeal of Phot.Net.</p>

<p>If the desire is to forget the numbers game and welcome young photographers and add to their knowledge base, the quality of interactions will increase and possibly also their frequency. I am always amazed at how few of the members actually (a) post images, (b) use the forums of discussion. Those are two areas of encouragement that might be used by the direction to inspire more use.</p>

<p>Some think that the sometimes very opiononated responses or debates on issues in the forums are driving others away, but I find that a bit of a frail excuse as we live in a very dynamic public arena. If someone feels strongly about their activity, like photography,they will certainly want to interact. All levels of expertise and interest are welcome I believe and the civility of Photo.Net is very high compared to many sites.</p>

<p>+1 Jeff and Brad.</p>

<p> </p>

Young people use Facebook c.s.<br>And they do that from their cell phones - their images end up straight from there to all their friends on Facebook c.s. Things are instantly discussed through WhatsApp and the like.<br>Forums are 'old hat', for people who remember when PC's had a floppy drive ("What's a PC, old man, and if it is supposed to be a personal computer, why can't you carry it on your person?")

<blockquote>

<p>Retired or semi-retired photographers seem to have more time for the forums than busy young people</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Most young people spend just as much time on FB and Instagram as the retired and semi-retired spend here. It's not about how much time, it's about what the time is used for.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some think that the sometimes very opiononated responses or debates on issues in the forums are driving others away, but I find that a bit of a frail excuse as we live in a very dynamic public arena.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does. Take a look at those threads. It's the same old arguments and the same old debaters. In fact, the Philosophy Forum reminds me of the local coffee shop. The retired and semi-retired have a section they dominate, sometimes arguing and sometimes just discussing, but the young people don't go there. It doesn't really grow, it's the same people for years. On the other hand, I have been sitting with another photographer my age going through prints in a public eating space and had crowds collect and look over my shoulder. Sometimes they ask questions. <br>

<br>

In addition, some of those old arguments are exactly the ones that chase out newcomers. The typical "when is a photograph not a photograph?" question is irrelevant to virtually all of the 90 million people who check into Instagram regularly. They aren't thinking about that. They are thinking about "how was that done?" or "why did you do that?" or just "I like it." The "what's a photograph" argument just tells them to look somewhere else for help.<br>

<br />A good example of how forums can be more useful for is sportsshooter.com. They don't have quite as much traffic as here, but they are heavily moderated and they draw a different crowd, overall younger and more active. Someone asked about iPad workflow. They got 50 responses! Here you only see that in furious arguments that are forgotten and useless a week later, or for a new product introduction which includes a lot of pointless argument about what the manufacturer should be doing. Not all 50 responses there were useful, but if I want to find out about iPad workflow when I'm shooting sports, or even workflow to a laptop for instant upload, there are better places to ask. And that shouldn't be.</p>

 

<p>Ann Overland was good for traffic, if nothing else. What happened to her? Where's the weekly picture post in casual? I asked about apps in the mobile phone forum awhile back and no feedback. Josh said, he agreed but that's it. That's another forum that ought to get moving with the younger crowd imo...</p>

<p>It should be considered that a most of the long term members already know a lot of the information that is available here. The newer people in photography do need information. In casual conversations with beginners at the magazine stand I will scribble down this website so they can learn more about their equipment and find answers to their questions.</p>

<p>Yes the younger crowd is into the newer technologies and are utilizing them. I am not. Just banging away on a desktop with five harddrives for storage. I prefer printing my images where a lot of the younger people do not appear to have that interest.</p>

<p>With specialized websites for the different camera makers, is it any wonder that a lot of people have drifted away. Think of them as boutique websites, where PNet is a general camera maker website much like a brick and mortar store. Any of the forums might have specialized websites. Keep in mind there are other general websites that compete with PNet like The Luminous Landscape.</p>

<p>We all have just so much time to work with, so we spend it in persuit of what gives us the better return.</p>

<p>Brad, I really agree with you. In recent years I have really tried to restrain myself from being combative on PN. I have a lot of pictures on Facebook taken for the swimming organization that I shoot pictures for. It is a great way to get them to that organization's members as they are shot in large arenas in fairly large numbers. Having said that I just took an rather long DP Review survey about my photographic tastes and equipment. When the question came up about my favorite photo site I answered photonet and not DP. They asked why as I remember and I stated that there is a more human face on PN. That is still what I like about photonet over other sites. There is also a cadre of folks here on PN that kind of take over some threads and whose names are very familiar if one comes here regularly. Some of these responders are very knowledgable and they produce credible contributions. A few engage in the back and forth described by Brad. This may give the appearance of a good old boys club of experts who have the time to reply almost as new threads are posted. Sometimes the old boys club comments become quite patronizing which may discourage some of the more silent majority which is substantial according to the numbers. </p>

<p>Having said that, even though I had my own photo business a few years ago and having used digital since 2002 I have learned an enormous amount on this site over the past seven years. I would like to see this site continue in a robust way. Facebook is a fact of life that can't be ignored. It is what it is and it is our competition. There needs to be attempts to make many more of our current registered members more active and, I think, there needs to be a major effort to cater to newcomers and beginners. Our demographic is certainly aging. Times change and in my life time if I have learned one thing is that you can't go back. Much as I would like to.</p>

<p>One thing that really irritates me on PN is posting photographs compared to DP. On DP I can take a photo of almost any size and post it directly from Lightroom. Their software takes care of it and pictures show up in four or five user selectable sizes where you can actually see resolution. The procedures here are archaic and even though I have 130 pictures posted here I don't post much anymore because I have to manually size the pictures to 700 ppi on the long side to post on threads and lose resolution that I try very hard to accomplish in my pictures. Resizing takes more time than I would like to spend. Even facebook auto sizes pictures. 700 is too small as far as I am concerned. </p>

 

<p>I still think organization and fragmentation of the forum is a turn off. A first timer is swamped with obscure titles such as mirrorless cameras( whoever went to a store and asked for a mirrorless camera). Then we have Olympus and Four-Thirds. We have Canon FD, which is distinguished by the mount then we have Canon EOS that is digital but the original EOS was a film camera. If you want to discuss EOS film cameras you have to head to the so called Modern Film Cameras, which everybody knows includes the EOS, of course. And no, people should not have to read a manifesto to figure put what is discussed in a forum. There are 45 forums, 45. We should be able to cap the forums to 15 and resist the temptation to open up a new forum every time something new pops up. This sort of compartmentalization prevents people from being exposed to new products and viewpoints. Here is my list for a clean and uncluttered P.net. Comments welcome.<br>

- One forum per camera brand(digital), flash, accessories etc. <br>

- One forum for all film cameras, flash, accessories etc. <br>

- One forum for all film and processing.<br>

- One forum for medium and large format.<br>

- One forum for wedding, portrait and fashion photography.<br>

- One forum for commentaries of all kind.</p>

<p>I am still under the 15-forum cap, so there is room for some more.</p>