Is Photo.net Dying?

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by jwink3101, Oct 20, 2002.

  1. Is this tongue in cheek? You haven't even been member for 10 years, and this thread is 18 years old!
     
  2. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    This is a nearly 18 year old thread, and the doom has not yet hit Why did you reopen it? Addressing current conditions and your specific concerns would be a more useful approach.
     
  3. This is nearly 18 years old and all I’d say is that PN still (barely) functions but there does seem to be a cloud of doom over the site. Funny, though, how that feeling was prevalent decades ago, as it seems like each change of admin and design brought it further from its original goal and closer to irrelevance.
     
  4. if you look through the entire site there are some sections that haven't been visited in months. Even the Beginners section which was fairly popular, is rarely visited anymore. The Education section is dead, so are the Wedding, Lighting Equipment, Pentax, Business, B&W sections. The same handful of people are the ones responsible for most of the posts in the forums. Some would rather watch than participate. I'm not sure why people got turned off, but Photo.net is not what it used to be for sure. I'm not saying that the redesign had anything to do with it but something about this design sort of hampered the free flow of ideas and fun(IMHO). In the old version of PN, tons of people use to post their pictures in the Critique Section good or bad, to have their photo's critiqued. So many pictures were posted at one time in that section, that it was difficult to find the pictures you posted. Sometimes I didn't like the heavy handed critiques, but I often based how good my pictures were by the amount of Views i would get. This section has become so top-heavy and complicated, its no longer popular anymore. Now I'm getting 1 or 2 views a month on a picture, when I use to get hundreds in one day ! It's ridiculous and sad at the same time. It's not that people have lost their interest in photography either, the Pentax Forum is still running Hot as ever. maybe PN can take a couple of pointers from them...
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2021
  5. as said, if it is dying, it seems to be lingering on for a long time.....
     
  6. I guess it all depends on when the owners decide if it's profitable or not ?
     
  7. Everything that could be said has probably been said. Something I do wonder about is owners. Why would anybody own a website that probably doesn't produce much return and why would anybody own a website and not be a participant? It's that lack of interest part that makes all the difference.
     
  8. Commercial indifference.
     
  9. I haven't been asked to pay any fees for the last four or five years, not sure why, but I'm still able to post on here. I paid fees for two years, then when the site changed format, no more fees and no questions asked. I even feel a bit guilty about it, but if they want some money, they need only ask, I'll send it soon enough. Can you donate to Photonet ?
     
  10. Maybe this thread can be a reference for tips on where to find photos by former PN members.
    For example, I would love to know where, if anywhere; Jack McCritchie (sp?) is posting new photos. also Vuc, Tony Dummet.
    Having already posted three specifics that I am curious about, I would also like to suggest that. for the sake of clutter,
    further specific requests not be made, but responses be limited to solutions.... ie "I found former member sistersharpeye posting at at site: heresheis.com"
     
    Jack McRitchie likes this.
  11. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    I have an address for Jack. i will find out if he cares to share any current info.
     
  12. I have been a member on this site for almost 20 years dumbass. And I was not aware there was a statute of limitations on a thread. In the time I have been frequenting this site I have seen it go from a site with truly excellent images to truly s*it images like yours.
     
  13. I agree with your take on statutes of limitations on threads and your take that the site has gone downhill.

    But the classlessness of your comment well outweighs whatever photo skills you may have. Going after someone's photos because they said something you don't like is stooping pretty low ... maybe you're a good candidate for PN hero of the day, given how down and out you think it is.
     
  14. The Forums might not be as popular but there are some pretty nice on-the-fly courses, if you care to look.
     
  15. Well according to your profile you haven’t been around for more than 8 years.
    Strangely I am pleased you think my images are s*it, I’d be worried if you thought otherwise. I have actually posted s*it here since 1997 when I began participating on photo.net, so that hasn’t changed.
     
  16. Don’t believe everything you read in a profile. When various redesigns of the site took place and for unknown technical reasons, many members’ previous accounts became unavailable to them, so they’ve had to start new accounts. This explains why a membership may go back many more years than the info in a profile might state.
     
    NHSN likes this.
  17. True, previously posted as don_e begining in 2006. You've had several account changes as well.

    There may be two issues. For not just pnet: the charismatic phase of digital photography ended and many people lost interest in photography after a few years, the elimination of many photography career-paths, and due to rise of blogs specializing in genres of photography or brands or types of cameras, and some in film sometimes exclusively (which did surprise me) -- so, fragmentation of the market. Blogs seem to convey presence or personality (and information) better than general forums.

    For Photo.net: I don't know much about what pnet provides besides the forums; they do appear to have less readers and posters than other forums I visit (but pnet is my only membership), many posters here are posting images and not writing much, if anything (which is ok by me). Possibly, pnet didn't know what to do next after the "charismatic phase" and has drifted along til now. Maybe all is fine in those parts of pnet I don't read.
     

Share This Page