New changes

<p>For what it's worth, I'm loving the new changes to the " Photographers You Follow" section; that's a cool improvement. Thanks for all you guys do behind the scenes.</p>

<p>I AM PROTESTING FOR THE CHAOS MADE WITH THE TRANSFERRING OF THE PAGE OF MOST INTERESTING 400 MEMBERS TO MOST FOLLOWED<br>

THE ORDER CHANGED SO THAT THE FINEST ARTISTS WERE PUSHED DOWN OF UNKNOWN REASONS (example:Ben Goossens from place 13 to place 103)<br>

THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO HAD MARKED THEM WAS REPLACED WITH SOME CODE OF NUMBERS FROM 1 TO 11 WHICH TELLS NOTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS<br>

AT SAME NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS THE FIRST DAY I HAD A CODE 6 AND A DAY LATER I HAVE A CODE 5 WHICH PUSHED ME DOWN FROM THE PLACE 24 TO THE PLACE 37<br>

I REQUIRE MORE TRANSPARENCY, AT LEAST AS IT WAS BEFORE<br>

I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE PLACE 24, I JUST WANT MY PREVIOUS PLACE NUMBER 56 WHICH I EARNED WITH MY EXPOSED WORK AND APPROXIMATELY 67.000 COMMENTS, AND FOR ALL OTHER MEMBERS THE DESERVED PLACE THEY HAD BEFORE, ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS!<br>

AND FINALLY, I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY THAT NUMBER WOULDN'T BE VISIBLE ON THE MEMBER PAGE AS IT IS EVERYWHERE ELSE<br>

July the 15 2013<br>

PDE<br>

P.S.<br>

I SEARCHED FOR DEBATE ABOUT THIS MATTER AND FOUND IT ON BLOG, I ALSO EXPRESSED MY PROTEST THERE JUST ADDING SOMETHING IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW INFORMATION:<br>

GENERATING MOST INTEREST IN THE LAST 30 DAYS, WHATEVER IT MEANS IS A QUITE DIFFERENT NOTION FROM THE FOR YEARS OF HARD WORK EARNED RESPECT AND THESE TWO MUST BE SEPARATED<br>

July the 16 2013</p>

<p>Personally, apart from some benefit received in the past with editors, I have rarely enjoyed the exposure gained by being high up on the list of “400 most interesting” members. It is a two way sword that sometimes also attracts the attention of malevolent people who resent such classifications. That said, I agree with Pierre Dumas. For those who have paid their dues and who have spent ages contributing to PN in such a manner as to result in some recognition, sometimes after much diligence and hard work, it is unfair if not unethical to just wipe out what they feel that they have earned. </p>

<p>Whereas I would understand and possibly even approve of getting rid of the list entirely (see below), I am in sympathy with those that consider its replacement as done at the present time to be totally irrational, misleading and unjust. Just for the record, the persons “following me” or “having followed me” who are still listed privately in my workshop as being over 5000 in number, have now been publicly reduced to 8! Many others are in a similar situation.</p>

<p>Moreover, the new list is not entitled on the page in which it appears as concerning only the" last 30 days", just the "most followed people". A huge number of members that I follow are no longer on the public list at all. Do they no longer deserve to be there (where is one of my favourite authors Foureyes)? So what do you plan next, to start from scratch again in a few years time, and if so in how long? I think that members that contribute to PN have a right to know, it is their names, and consequently their work and notoriety that is concerned. If someone were to refer to this list in its present form for any reason, professional or otherwise, considerable prejudice could result. <br>

</p>

<p>My vote, though no one asked for it, is probably (I’m undecided) to get rid of the list completely and, if not, then at minimum to re-instate the truth. That said, a sub-section for the last 30 days would not harm anyone though it would probably be of limited interest, the existing top listed photos per week or month, in terms of subject, number of views, comments and folders etc., already says it all. </p>

 

<p>Can the drop down section of photographers I am following, replete with a slew of images, being set by default be changed by myself? If so how? When I log in to PN it is most often in order to follow up on critiques. before I can do that I first have to close or otherwise navigate around the annoying 'photographers I'm following' section and then open the photo critique section or else I have to scroll the page. Since I cannot find a way to set my own defaults I removed everyone from the list of people I follow and that solved the problem but it is a tedious work around to unfollow several hundred names.<br>

As for the most this and most that issue I agree with John. If you are not going to reflect the truth just kill the silly thing.</p>

<p>I am following two threads at the same time and would find it perfectly in order if the administrators decided to remove one of the two.<br /><br />For reasons of clarity however, I would like to add that if the new list created is that of the people that "generated the most interest" during the last 30 days, what does one do with the people that followed the author until now, do they cease to exist, are they no longer generating any interest together with those that are newly inscribed?</p>

<p>I just added Pierre Dumas to my list of interesting people, he popped up one position on the list. He now has 6 NEW followers in the last 30 days, in addition to the previous ones that are hidden. In reality, the "interest he is generating this month" is not 6 people as suggested but a much larger number than that. That in my view is where an incoherence lies, in addition to changing the status quo. </p>

<p>I do understand that PN is asking for feedback in order to fine tune a change in progress. I hope this highlights one of the problems.</p>

<p >Some changes were made, at first glance! They were made indeed, as a matter of fact, but what an embarrassment to make such an obvious mistake in the same time!</p>

<p >The administration, neglecting my suggestion that to follow isn't the same as mark as interesting and the fact that almost all on the list of most interesting members were marked as interesting, not followed therefore, put two columns on the page of most followed members, on the left side in all time and on the right in the past 90 days!</p>

<p >On the left column there is a huge change in then order of members, so that my name has been replaced (from place 56 to place 111) together with a group of other members which were right above me two weeks ago (July the 2)</p>

<p >Then, the member who was after me needed 32 votes to reach my place and on the column on the right nobody had more than 12 followers in the past 90 days!</p>

<p >One doesn't need to have high education in mathematics to register the absurdity of the situation!</p>

<p >What now, who's to blame for such an obvious mistake, did the system do it?!</p>

<p>Actually John, there's three threads if you count the "Blog" too!</p>

<p>Now that I have deleted my list of followed members, whichever tab I have open, critiques for example, when I leave the site stays open the next time I visit. Unless someone has instituted a fix and not told us, this is a poor but passable work around.</p>

<p>I am recording data at least since May 2011 and although there were cases of someone "popping up" out of nowhere from time to time, the order was pretty steady. Such a "miracle" never happened! A group of members to drop down for 55 places (which implies as many to pop up out of nowhere) all of a sudden is indeed a miracle! <br>

PDE</p>

<p>Amy - thank you. I'm so glad you like the update. <br /><br />I'm also copying what I just wrote on the blog just because there are a few threads going on this topic. Thanks, everyone. <br /><br /><br>

Thank you for taking the time to comment with positive feedback and concerns/suggestions, which is precisely why we asked for feedback. Some further tweaks based on your suggestions:</p>

<ul>

<li>The collapsible sections now should default to whatever you had open last session. This should ensure the sections you want are open/closed when you first log in. This is run by cookies, so per Jin: This works using cookies, so the state will not persist across different browsers.</li>

<li>Photographers come and go on the site continually, so it is helpful to show activity from a recent period of time, hence the recently most followed. Now the list of photographers followed shows both "All Time" AND "Last 90 days." You can see this list from your workspace. "All time" is now same as it was before, with the exception that any photographer on that list that isn't active/hasn't logged in during the last 90 days isn't on there anymore.</li>

<li>By "follow this photographer" you can now see how many followers he/she has.</li>

</ul>

<p>We are also looking into adding the non-photo recent uploads into the workspace stream – that is a good suggestion. 

We are also looking at nudes because no doubt, you don't necessarily want to see nude photographs in your stream. Right now, not all nudes are categorized, so there isn't a way to filter them. We are working on a larger category/tagging system to deal with this here and in other areas of the site. <br />You asked why these changes were made. It is to be able to see recent uploads from photographers to be able to comment/critique them and to promote more interaction. It is also based on member suggestion – people wanted to be able to see recent photo uploads and wanted a cleaner workspace. The grey collapsible bars ensure you can hide what you don't want to see. <br />I will also copy this into the forums where appropriate. The blog is permanently anchored to the top of the unified forum until another blog post is written, which makes it a good place to communicate to a wide group. <br />Thanks again.</p>

<p>TACIT AGREEMENT<br>

I am showing my benevolence with accepting the compromise! I noticed that two of my suggestions/reactions were implemented/ tacit responded and one partly! Since I didn't focus on the other remarks made by others which were simply neglected I don't have anything to expect more!<br>

MY PROTEST IS OVER<br>

PDE</p>

<p>TACIT AGREEMENT<br>

I am showing my benevolence with accepting the compromise! I noticed that two of my suggestions/reactions were implemented/ tacit responded and one partly! Since I didn't focus on the other remarks made by others which were simply neglected I don't have anything to expect more!<br>

MY PROTEST IS OVER<br>

PDE</p>

<p>Pierre,<br>

You are like Senator Harry Reid, too willing to accept a compromise :-) GJ</p>

<p>GJ, thanks to you I found out that my comment is here (two pages confused me and I tried twice and gave up because it didn't show on the page where I expected to find it!)!<br /> I must use this occasion to correct something in it: Other remarks, as I now see weren't neglected, IE the customizing of the workspace is very good solution!<br /> All is well that ends well!<br /> PDE<br>

P.S. I only don't like the removing people from the list due to inactivity, there are some great artists who are no longer with us and it isn't good for them to vanish from the top of the list after 90 days!</p>

<p>Thank you for this exchange. Things appear to be taking shape.</p>

<p>Admittedly, I have never understood this ostracisation of the “nude”, prevalent thankfully only in puritanical societies, which has been represented in art since the Paleolitic age and continues to be shown in museums around the word. I do sympathize however with the fact that minors should be shielded from what is not always appropriate.</p>

<p>That said, photographers of the nude have equal rights to everyone else as well as to have their work exposed. I would suggest that an option be given to have nudity appear or not on one’s page or that an “adult filter” be installed such as Deviant Art and other sites have to protect minors. This of course implies the author specifying on upload whether a photo contains nudity or not, which is no big deal. The choice of content then visible to each member is usually pressed on once and for all. Thank you once again.</p>

<p>I'm perceiving feature changes to make Pnet more Facebook-like. At some point there might be little reason not to simply join Facebook. </p>

<p>Ditto Michael.<br /> Here is a part of photographers PN is suggesting follow;<br /> If you want to follow them by asking a question,? learn from their experiene,?numbered yes! !....no one to ask</p>

<p>David Orea 24 -died some years ago...<br /> Floriana barbu - 24 not to be found ..<br /> Cherlyn- 21 left a long time ago...<br /> Keite lancaster - 20 not to be found...<br /> Biliana Rakocevice- 18 not to be found...<br /> Glauco Dattini -16 not to be found...<br /> Kent B- 15 -....not to be found....<br /> Marc Adamus- 15 not to be found...<br /> Paula Grenside- 14 left a very long time ago....<br /> Yuri Bonder- 13 died quite some years ago...<br /> Daily Photograph-12 left a long time ago...<br /> All of them and many more left a long time ago!</p>

<p>And so on and on...I don't know who has decided about the numbers...</p>

<p>But I'm sorry, after many years a member, PN direction , where to?<br /> <br /> You are right Michael Chang !Maybe it is a high time to look for another photographic site...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At some point there might be little reason not to simply join Facebook.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where do they post their equipment reviews? Plus, if you think your work doesn't stand out on photo.net, what's the chances it will stand out in a crowd that's probably a million times bigger? And why Facebook? Why not Google+ or 500px or Tumblr. If you just want a place to put your images there are dozens of sites<br>

<br>

Personally I can think of many, many reasons not to use Facebook (or any other socal networking site) as my photography site, and almost as many reasons not to use Facebook at all. I wonder how much feedback you'd get if you asked Mark Zuckerberg a question, or asked for a new feature (not quite sure where you'd ask that though).<br>

<br>

The grass is often greener elsewhere...until you get there.</p>

<p>Well said Bob - thank you! <br>

Pnina - it might be worth while to check out our response yesterday if you haven't already seen it. <a href="/site-help-forum/00bpPr">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00bpPr</a> <br>

Closing paragraphs are key:<br>

We can make site changes and provide content, but the other large part of improving everyone's experience here lies with the members. We've heard from former members that they left because of a negative experience, were intimidated, or offended by a racist, sexist, or harassing comment. Since we’ve been here we have adopted a zero tolerance policy for such that kind of behavior with the expectation that it would help weed out some of the negativity. However those are things that only you all, as the members, can change. People are drawn to positive energy and tend to avoid negative experiences. <br /><br />Year to date<strong>, we had over 14,000 new registrations and almost 2,000 subscribers, so let's all make sure those new folks have a good experience here together. </strong>It is largely up to each and every one of you to create a positive environment for photo.net to grow and flourish. While we all are passionate about photo.net and come to work each day with the goal of making it a better place for photographers to be inspired by one another and learn from one another…we know that the power of community is really what drives it forward and makes it a special place. That starts by each and every one of you taking care of it – making the right choices every day in how you engage, act and react, to make it the place we all want it to be.</p>

 

<p>Bob, there are other sites , good ones, at least as PN was when I joined it. I think what Michael means was not necessarily facebook... but not PN as well...<br /> I like PN and it is painful to see , where is it going?</p>

<p>Bob and Glenn ,this paragraph can be addode to my list above!</p>

<p>Year to date<strong>, we had over 14,000 new registrations and almost 2,000 subscribers, so let's all make sure those new folks have a good experience here together.</strong><br /> <br /> It depends are you going for quantity ,it looks so, on account of quality, which is neglected!</p>

<p>@Pnina - the problem you pointed out in the "suggested to follow" function has been fixed as the filter (only those that have recently logged in & contributed) has been added. You should only see those photographers that are active in that list now. <br>

In case it is not clear - the function was added so you could see more photos of those photographers you follow easier than you could before. By seeing recent uploads of those photographers you follow in your workspace, you could in turn - critique or rate the recent uploads that you might have missed otherwise. We all want to see more ratings and critiques and we all want feedback on our photos sooner than later so we saw this as something that could help towards that end. <br>

If you don't want to follow photographers on photo.net and see their recent uploads, then it is your choice to leave that function it minimized in your workspace. <br>

Quick fix. Please let us know if you see any other glitches. </p>

<p>Glenn, what happens with those changes,is that the photographers I follow I know well to see their work by myself.I think that the help is not needed.<br>

The other thing is that good photographers are less and less present like: Jack Mcr, Like Gordon B. and many others that can be a great assets for PN but they are not counted...in your suggestions....</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"if you think your work doesn't stand out on photo.net, what's the chances it will stand out in a crowd that's probably a million times bigger? And why Facebook? Why not Google+ or 500px or Tumblr. If you just want a place to put your images there are dozens of sites"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, I'm not here for popularity contests. I'm here for an engaging community experience. </p>

<p>Why, for example, is it relevant that the "number of followers" be made prominently visible under ones name, if not to encourage popularity contests? I have a Facebook account for that if popularity interested me. </p>

<p>Time will tell whether it will pan out if popularity contests is the backbone of the new plan, but I can say from my observation of prior attempts at anything resembling contests will probably do more harm than good over the long haul - ratings etc..</p>

<p>I can almost feel the posters and silent observers of this thread biting their tongues, and it's not a good feeling when we have no other means of an honest discussion than veiled remarks in a public forum. <br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Pnina - Suggested to follow is - "Here are some photographers the people you follow are following."<br>

So it is not the same for everyone. <br>

If you like the work of Jack Mcr, Gordon B or others then you should follow them. They follow photographers that you might not have discovered yet - and this list will help you discover who they have already discovered and are following.</p>

<p>@Michael - "I'm here for an engaging community experience". <br>

We're trying to help you discover photographers that you might not otherwise have discovered. We're trying to make it easier on you to find things that might have otherwise been never found....all with the goal of providing you a more engaging experience. My suggestion would be to follow more photographers - see what happens.....more will likely follow you and in turn you have more of an opportunity to engage with them on a meaningful level. In the end, whether it is photo.net or in life - its all about discovery and engagement with those new found discoveries. I find this unfortunate you see this enhancement solely as a popularity contest. Take it for a test drive and you might find yourself surprised - if not minimize it in your workspace and forget it was there.</p>