Photo.net 2.0

Discussion in 'Website Creation' started by GPalm, Aug 29, 2016.

  1. GPalm

    GPalm Testing Staff Member

    Hello Everyone - we're back to 1.0 as you can tell. Updates will come soon with our progress - and we will make a beta site available as soon as the DNS redirects are settled. Will update soon with the beta URL so we can continue the beta conversation. Thank you all for your support.
     
  2. Thank you - sincerely, not sarcastically.
     
  3. Glenn...I know this is a tough decision but I think a wise one. I love this site and will be happy to participate in any Beta testing.
     
  4. Thanks for reverting until the kinks are worked out. PN 1.0 is much faster where I am now. I would suggest a "how to" tab on the fixed 2.0 detailing how to find familiar threads.
     
  5. Maybe a User's Guide or some similar documentation for PN 2.0. When I worked in software development, documentation was contractually required for software products.
     
  6. GPalm

    GPalm Testing Staff Member

    thank you all for your support. We discussed user guide and the designer said (and i'm paraphrasing...but "if it needs a user guide its not designed properly".....i believe there is some truth to that. That said, I will create one using screen-o-matic - which creates a video of my screen as I tour the site. For now, we're focused on resolving the issues in beta environment for now and will make public again very soon and will notify everyone of the URL - we have some DNS changes that need to take effect, redirects, etc. Thank you again for your support.
     
  7. Thank you!
     
  8. Good move, Glenn - thanks!
     
  9. Photo.net 1.0 is faster, easier,... much better than the beta 2.0
    BIG Changes are not always necessary.
    So Thanks, Thanks for coming back 1.0 ;)
     
  10. Thank You!!!!!
     
  11. Nothing wrong with a strategic retreat.
     
  12. Many thanks for your patience and perseverance Glenn. this is a great site, well worth the effort.
     
  13. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Good choice, Glenn. I hope the disappointment isn't overwhelming.
    In my case I was unable to 'log in' to the beta version to help with input as I don't remember my 13 year old password and P.net doesn't provide a solution via email for me to change it. (I must know the old one to create a new one).
    Good Luck going forward.
     
  14. Thanks for working so hard on this Glenn...i’m glad to see the digital alterations category again and I can now rate photographs and have my own rated as well...for me, these abilities are very important to my work...regards....David
     
  15. Gup, I was able to change my password this morning. If you don’t know your password, you may have to logout and then click the icon that says something like “lost password”. When I did that, I easily was able to change it. But know that the password instructions will go to the email that is associated with your account and if it’s an email your no longer use, you will need another way of accomplishing this.
     
  16. Thanks. I liked where you are heading with the new style and liked the looks. The loss of functions and a few glitches had
    me concerned. It's hard to do, but I think this temporary back step is the right idea. Keep up the good work and I look
    forward to end result!
     
  17. Saying "If it needs instructions, its not programmed correctly" may be a good theory but it is a bad practice. PN 1.0 had a search function
    that I used many times. The help button on Adobe software is vital when doing a new process. All of my digital cameras have manuals. At a
    minimum restore a functioning search box. I tried to use what was on PN2.0 but it did not respond with the right info.
     
  18. "if it needs a user guide its not designed properly"​
    As Randy said, it may be good theory but that's about as far as it goes.
    I was in I.T. well over 30 years with at least 20 of those designing and implementing human interface platforms. Never once have I seen a case where that philosophy actually worked in practice. Even the most basic of cell phone apps (at least the good ones) have, at a minimum, a rudimentary 'help' function.
    A "User Guide", be it printed, electronic or 'help', needs to include at least 3 things:
    1 - What the system or product can do
    2 - Where to do it
    3 - How to do it
    For a very recent example of what can happen without this I refer you to 'photo.net 2.0'.
     
  19. Thank you
     
  20. A little bit of good news----I can now log on again on my pc, but Safari will not me log on with my i-phone---it says "too many redirects", but I will keep trying. Hopefully this will soon be fixed--Jerry
     
  21. I tened to agree with "If it needs instructions....." This is a website, not PS or a camara, if instructions are needed, many
    potential users will skip it.
    I was beginning to understand the functionality of 2 and liked some of the features, my major gripe is that many features
    did not function. Hopefully it will be fixed and looking forward to giving beta a test run.
     
  22. The new beta should be alfa + beta,,not beta less alfa,,,,we the consumers may have the working tools,,,,hope the final result faster and better,,but,,,nice view thanks for showing us...
     
  23. Thank you. I came to the site just now with trepidation, thinking about all the problems I would run into, but found the old photo.net. I hope the kinks in the new version can be worked out.
     
  24. I really think you made the right move. I was beta testing before, but didn't really work through it. Now that I know a little more, I'll be happy to test if you want me to. Cheers
     
  25. Thank you for all your efforts, Glenn and the photo.net team. I saw that a lot of anger and frustration was directed at you and the others who worked on V2, which must have been hard to take, given the effort you and the team undoubtedly put into it. While there were some nice stylistic touches in V2, unfortunately there were a few functional problems, which, while frustrating, are not unexpected when a major overhaul is done. No doubt you and the team are working to rectify the issues. I look forward to seeing the fruits of your labor, and to continue to participate in this wonderful site and community.
     
  26. Thank you for putting V1.0 back. I am happy you had the courage to review your decision about the update. I have seen this happen too many times with big updates taken simultaneously into use, as a long time member I love this site and would like to participate in beta testing... but prefererably with changes in small babysteps.
    Jani
     
  27. I am very happy that the Photo.net returned to the 1.0. The new version seems a long way from prime time. It was slow and cumbersome and I gave up using it after a few minutes. It also got horrible reviews on a thread in dpreview.
     
  28. Glenn: Thank you very much... Mike
     
  29. No option really was there. Although the initial colour and freshness of 2.0 was great it was claustrophobic and slow.
    For me the most important principle is that any photograph must be presented in full view in it's own space and there must be the option to view large. A viewer can then make a fair decision as to whether to view in detail and perhaps comment. That is the overriding failure of 2.0 for me.
    So I would post very reluctantly to 2.0 as it stands.
    Glad to see the end of numerical rating system though. Ironic that this was removed only for elite members to appear!
    Tony
     
  30. A good move - there's a lot of support for what you are doing and a public beta may help in achieving your aims.
     
  31. This opinion might be due to my age but I do find 1.0 easier to navigate - I never had any complaints about the original format.
     
  32. Thank you for reverting back to 1.0. A pleasant surprise. Please, just leave it be
     
  33. I prefer PN 1.0. PN 2.O I don't like and I lost a lot of information. Thanks PN1.0!
     
  34. Glenn: I just sort of stumbled into this thread (not one of my usual Forum browses ) but, I
    too would like to echo the many thanks to you and your team for the decision to at least
    temporarily revert back to PN 1.0 and possibly establish a more accessible beta site for PN
    2.0.


    When the URL for the beta is established, can it also be posted in the other Forums where
    the PN 2.0 conversations are happening, Site Help, Casual Conversations, etc., etc.?

    . . .Jim j.
     
  35. Now keep it!

    What would be the advantages of 2.0?
    OK, some may find the design antiquated. But it is exactly why I read photo.net. If the interface is gone, I go to apug and will not look back.
    1.0 still has the elements and functionality of the times when Travels with Samantha was first online. You had the text where it was necessary and the pictures had space so you can see them. No clutter. I would have never read that long journey it it had been presented with the clutter that PN 2.0 or other modern sites impose on their users.
     
  36. I think what we all experienced with PN 2.0 will hopefully discourage anyone else in the future from complaining to Glenn about why there's been such a long delay in fully launching it.
    I suggest to Glenn the next time he gets any further complaints from PN members on this subject he should reply with...
    "Don't make me get the PN 2.0 out...I'll top this car if I have to!"
     
  37. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Personally speaking, I have only one issue with this 1.0 version and always have... the 700 pixel max for images.
    That's it. Sure, there's other quirks with uploading, etc., but all in all I've been comfortable with the site's characteristics and performance for over 13 years now of just-about-daily visits. I have no need for any more flash or pageantry. The KISS factor comes to mind.
     
  38. Gup said:
    Personally speaking, I have only one issue with this 1.0 version and always have... the 700 pixel max for images.
    That's it. Sure, there's other quirks with uploading, etc., but all in all I've been comfortable with the site's characteristics and performance for over 13 years now of just-about-daily visits. I have no need for any more flash or pageantry. The KISS factor comes to mind.​

    I agree. This is a photography site, so why not put more emphasis on the images. All my other Forums allow BBCode and realistic sized images. While not full-screen, like Flickr, those sites allow full communication of our photographic idea. Here, viewers have to link over to other sites to get even a 1024p view. The 700p just seems outdated.
     
  39. One of the problems I have with uploads is the softening that happens to the image that goes beyond what should be expected...when I upload to other sites, i get better renditions, more clarity and better color fidelity...pn 2.0 was an improvement in those areas and although there are many kinks to resolve, the images appeared sharper and more true to their originals...
     
  40. brf

    brf

    Glad we're back to the old site- but let me make a couple of observations:
    > Sure- it didn 't work, but it had some positives.
    > A- the images were very clear, more so than current site.
    > B- ratings were eliminated, I guess, and that's probably good.
    > ok- what needs to be done. > First, some kind of "how to" link since so much was changed.
    > I finally found that the forum of Asked for critique (or some such) is similar to critique forum. Which we use mostly.
    > The upload didn't work at all.
    > Changes to profile don't "save" from one visit to another.
    > The whole format seems similar to 500px.
    > The lack of "large view" is a big minus, allowed greater inspection of quality of photo.
    > The thumbnails without info unless hovered over is also not good. If space is needed, make 2 columns of thumbs with info, rather than the whole page full- hard to see what's what like that.
    > You probably know all this, but I really just wanted to help. Hope your vendor (of the software) can get it sorted out.
    > Lastly, it would be great if there were a way for the subscribers to be kept up to date on what's happening. We pay, so feel some ownership of PN and want to see it succeed.
    > Good luck!
    > Greg Sava
     
  41. Since I had no problems with the site I might as well fill you in on my platform so you know where it does work: Android 5.0, Asus Zenfone 2, Chrome
     
  42. For what it's worth, there are still people creating new threads and posting comments to PN 2.0. And names seem to have disappeared so you can't tell who is doing the posting.
    The link to All Posts on 2.0: http://www.photo.net/forums/
    The link to Unified View on 1.0: http://www.photo.net/bboard/unified/
     
  43. David, that's interesting and/or weird about PN 2.0.
    The PN 2.0 page in my Firefox browser shows no "sign in or sign out" interface as it was before they went back to PN 1.0. All the avatars to each contributor has a broken icon symbol and of course no names.
    It could be testing by administration that's making it look as if there's activity. I'm surprised it's still accessible.
     
  44. I use Chrome on a Windows 10 OS. I couldn't right-click to select, Copy, Cut Paste.
     
  45. Just to add when I hover the cursor over the space where my avatar used to be on PN 2.0, the dropdown menu shows I'm still logged in.
     
  46. I considered that it might be admins doing testing. But you'd think they would write stuff like, "This is a test message." Instead, there are actual postings about different topics. One person even wrote something like, "I can't figure out why nobody is commenting on this new design." So it seems as though some people are finding their ways into the PN 2.0 forum and don't know that the rest of us have all gone back to PN 1.0.
     
  47. I wonder what the age bracket of that one person is that's still posting in PN 2.0? How does one find the age of a PN member so we can tell we're attracting the newer, younger generation who prefer PN 2.0?
     
  48. Change for PN was long overdue! Old version show it's age. Looks boring and it is not friendly at all. I was on new version only for couple of days. I really like it. Easy to use. Modern design. Beautiful interface. It just make sense! Stupid rating system was gone. I can't wait to get back to it!
    ...and please no manuals How to, your designer is right!!
     
  49. I guess it would be a success, if the new 2.0 had some kind of "virtual 1.0" mode with old looks to keep the old generation happy ; )
     
  50. Glenn,
    Thanks for reverting back. The Forum functionality with Version 1 is great. All most folks wanted was the ability post larger photos, but I would not trade the Forum set up as is for larger photos.
    Other problems with the 2.0 Forum, There seemed to be no way to edit a post on V.2. Even typos on the first round were underlined but no way to right click and get correct spelling so we were left with spell it perfect the first time or open another window/tab and Google the word, before submitting. Sorry, I make typos, I see them and try to fix them, I am a fairly good speller, but some words I have to look up. I need to be able to easily edit a post.
    I also didn't like how the number of past posts seemed more limited, search didn't work. And I like the look of V.1.
    Just my 2 cents. I do appreciate the hard work you are doing and sorry this turned into a fiasco on the first round. I hope you aren't feeling too beat up. Hang in there.
     
  51. Is the rating system toast or is it appropriate to suggest changes?
     
  52. There are clearly people here who liked some features of
    2.0. I'd like to hear more about what they liked, and what
    features they would like to have. I find the change to the
    forum system made it essentially unusable - but the fora
    are where I spent most of my time, and maybe I'd have
    had a different opinion if I did more using of the rest of
    pnet. Understanding what people actually wanted would
    make me feel much better about this process.
    Personally I couldn't care less about things like choice of
    font (and the banner image was a huge negative to me),
    but "not caring" means if it'll make others happy to
    change it, I don't mind. I just doubt that level of
    cosmetics is going to attract new users. But I could be
    wrong - I never understood why manufacturers sell
    coloured cameras either.
     
  53. I frankly liked the fresh look of 2.0, and found features I liked quite easily navigated. It was more visually appealing. I thought the presentation of my images looked better, and I liked the tools around them for reactions/responses from the community. I liked the simplifying of the forum experience. I believe younger potential users might feel the 2.0 look and functionality more friendly. Longtime and aging users might benefit from being more open to features that could bring some fresh blood to photo.net. I hope you won't give up on it.
     
    Ziggy01 likes this.
  54. Okay, thanks Howard. Can you tell us more about which features/sections you were using and what you liked (or don't like about the current ones)?

    In addition to the bugs and the (catastrophic, unfortunately) spam filtering causing deleted threads, my issues with the forum system started with the hiding of responses below others so there was no overall (let alone chronological) view of all posts in a thread, went through lack of ability to edit a post, continued with the mangled formatting (I at least worked out how to add a line break, but ended up with all my posts centred on mobile), tripped over the lack of times on responses so you couldn't tell in what order things had been said, stubbed a toe on the invisible poster names (initially just hard to read, eventually actually missing), weren't helped by bugs such as the "one response" thing, wandered by a few other issues that I don't currently remember, and ended up with pointlessness like the huge banner image which wasted battery life on mobile by being animated according to phone tilt angle (which I assume someone thought was "cool"). Oh, and that's not mentioning the fact that nothing worked on my browser with javascript disabled (where I normally have about forty threads, several of which are active, open), that the metadata for images in the mobile view was much larger than the images themselves, and that the image upload mechanism insisted on putting things in a gallery. Other than the amount that was missing, I certainly didn't find the forum interface "simplified" - but I would like to know why you did.

    I'm not averse to change (okay, I'm 42, these things are relative), and there are things (especially site search) that could stand improvement. At some point we'll just disagree on aesthetics (or in my case possible in a preference for function over form), but I believe there's a middle ground. Of course, I'm optimistically hoping that the members can be in on this discussion and that managerial pressure won't result in an autocratic decision without our input...
     
  55. ...I'm optimistically hoping that the members can be in on this discussion and that managerial pressure won't result in an autocratic decision without our input...​
    Don't hold your breath on that.
    P.N is a 'for profit' business entity (versus the academic exercise/hobby that it started out as) and the bottom line will have precedence over all else. Members preferences will be considered in the context of the perceived impact on profitability and will be accepted/rejected accordingly. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, just recognize it as being the driving force when it comes to decision making.
    If management believes (using whatever criteria they choose) that having a site designed for use on hand held, touch screen devices or a 'form over function' approach will have a positive impact on profits then that is the decision that will be made and time will tell if it's the correct decision.
     
  56. Absolutely, Dick. I appreciate that management need to do what they believe is right for the business, and I'm happy for pnet to turn a profit (so that it can keep running) and attract new people (which makes it more valuable). Still, I believe the biggest resource of the site is its members, both for their contributions (and I've already suggested that a solution to the lack of editorial content might be to ask members to offer opinion pieces - even if it's for free) and because us members are paying, a bit. I'm happy for management to believe that a mobile-friendly site is important - but 2.0 was even more unusable on mobile than on desktop, in my experience.

    So let's evolve, but what I hope is that the knowledge of the community (no few of which have some expertise in web design, computing in general and user interface design), their understanding of user requirements for the site (based on, you know, using the current one) and their facility for testing proposed updates be used properly. I'm very happy for the owners of pnet to make lots of money (even out of my contributions); we should be pulling in the same direction, and I hope we can. Striking out in a way that alienates the current user base will, I'm sure, do more harm to the site than any possible good it could achieve - so I hope that doesn't happen (again).
     
  57. I agree with Rolph M. Often the "better" is worse of the "well!" The bases of the "old" Photo.net are perfect, and they allow us all the possibilities of which we have need. The 2.0 is not intuitive, it doesn't offer all the possibilities of the "old" and gives many problems of connection, of speed and of interaction among consumers. In Italy we say: "Who leaves the old street for the new one, he knows what leaves but not that that finds. Ahahah!!!
     
  58. I agree with Rolph M. Often the "better" is worse of the "well!" The bases of the "old" Photo.net are perfect, and they allow us all the possibilities of which we have need. The 2.0 is not intuitive, it doesn't offer all the possibilities of the "old" and gives many problems of connection, of speed and of interaction among consumers. In Italy we say: "Who leaves the old street for the new one, he knows what leaves but not that that finds. Ahahah!!!
     
  59. Yep, a business model applies, but I'm sure when the analytics showed the huge drop in amount of usage, and especially time of usage, i when the the rollout occurred must have rattled some cages in management.
     
  60. it

    it

    The tiny photos thing on V1 is very 1998.
     
  61. The new site site should be designed so that only forum text, not images, are visible on mobile devices. The gods did not intend for art to be viewed and critiqued on phones. Stone Ager.
     
  62. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I wonder what the age bracket of that one person is that's still posting in PN 2.0? How does one find the age of a PN member so we can tell we're attracting the newer, younger generation who prefer PN 2.0?​
    News flash, newer younger generations don't do forums
     
  63. I agree with Rolph M, sometimes the "old" is better than the "new"!
     
  64. For the moment I am glad to be back on 1.0 that really works very fast and gives me what I want to have from lot of options.In 2.0 that I like how is presented as design as we discussed what bother me very much is the lack of options in way to manage portfolio and search.Was very slow,a page open in 10-15 sec. (compare with 1.0 when I open a page in less than 2sec.)The lack of large view is other major point we want to have again,also why in portfolio the photos are crop and not show in thumbnail in whole size?
    Reading comments here I agree what Gregory and Verena Sava say,and I support the new things and what you want to do but to be a step forward not back.I am really curious to have and work with new 2.0 improved with our wishes and to have a new beginning in September.
     
  65. Andrew, I ran into some of the same snafus that you listed. No arguments there. What I liked most in 2.0 was the larger thumbnails in my gallery, buttons for easy liking and commenting on images, simplified forums and navigating that reminded me more of my Flickr experience. I wasn't complaining about 1.0, even though I thought it had gotten pretty stodgy, and it seemed at the times I visited, that the same old troops were the only ones posting much in the forums I frequent: Nikon, Casual Conversations, Philosophy of Photography. I've made the comment about 2.0 attracting "younger" users because of its emphasis on esthetics over in-depth functioning. Sites like Instagram and Pinterest are much more streamlined. Granted, Flickr is probably losing the battle, but I like it, and 2.0 reminded me a little of it.
     
  66. Hopefully I can post here now (I discovered the hard way that there's a three post per day limit in this forum...)

    > Howard: Thanks for clarifying. I hope we can find a way to update the site to improve aesthetics without actually reducing functionality.

    Jim: I'm obliged to mention that phones tend to have higher resolution screens than monitors (partly because they're updated more often), and often also have better colours and viewing angles. Larger modern phones aren't much smaller than a 6x4 print, and bigger than most transparencies - and there's a VR headset if you want a "loupe". Yes, I'd use a tablet or high-end laptop if I wanted to see an image at its best, but if we're aiming for reasonable bandwidth and fast downloads, I feel I can see the average in-thread image just fine on my phone (which isn't cutting edge any more). Besides, several of my recent Nikon Wednesday posts needed 1:1 pixels at the 700-pixel limit because even a 500mm lens was wanting for reach! I'm keen that the site work well on a phone - even if only in "request desktop view" mode - because I use it a lot from there. I didn't feel the 2.0 attempt achieved that at all, but something else could. (And while I don't mind it existing, I'm just not going to install a custom app to do what my web browser can do already if there's any possible alternative.)

    Disclaimer: I work for but don't represent Samsung's mobile division, and I may be biased towards the higher-end of the phone market in terms of what devices can do and how easy they are to use. But a lot of internet access is casual and on mobile devices these days, so I really wouldn't want to rule it out.
     
  67. I want my money back since the 2 lacks the elementary qualities of the good old site! That because I know whatever of my suggestion (which would be 1000 and more) wouldn't be accepted! So, I give up Photo.net which was my main occupation in the last 14 years and must be satisfied with a simple refund of $25 which is a lot of money for me to be thrown away!
     
  68. Pierre... we're currently back on "the good old site". I hope we can arrange that the qualities you want will remain (at least if they're compatible with the needs of most of the members!) and we won't be transitioning until there's a lot more agreement than we saw with the 2.0 roll-out. I'd be happy to see your 1000 suggestions - it at least means you're interested in improving the site, and I'd rather see lots of ideas and pick between them. (To be clear, I'm nothing to do with the dev team, but I absolutely want to be in this discussion). Let's see if they're accepted before we assume they won't be? I'm sure not everything is mutually compatible, not everything is easy to do, and not everything will be popular with all members, but that doesn't mean ideas shouldn't be presented. I hope you'll hang around to help with this process before resorting to asking for refunds - I'm sure it'll at least take long enough for your current membership to expire!
     
  69. Andrew,
    I just want all the features of the current site to be on the 2! I want hidden folders by my choice, all the stuff shown on my member page as it is now, all transparent as it is now, rating system as it was before (or it is now at least, because I've paid my subscription for that feature too), wide, user friendly design, not large pictures instead of thumbnails (if someone wants to see the picture he might click on the thumb nail, large view picture to be able to see the details and estimate the technical quality, not suffocating dark colors of everything, ranking of photographers and photos by their ratings received, by number of comments, by views, by everything as it is now, when I hit "enter" in a text, that enter to be registered and executed...long is the list and I can't say other than "as it is now" in short!
     
  70. I must remind you: I want my money back cause I won't get lots of features present when I paid last subscription!
    It is not a matter of democracy and voting referring you remark about ...the most of the members...!
    First: If we all agreed to buy a superb jet and then the majority "voted" to replace it with an old used Fiat 500...what then?
    Second: I don't see here the majority of the members, Photo.net claims that there are 800.000 registered members
    Conclusion: I have the moral right to get my money back, although I and all members don't have any formal rights, just to mention that the administration has the right to delete anyone's account without telling him the reason and actually with no reason at all! As three or four my best rated pictures were deleted by the administration with no word about the reason why!
     
  71. Thanks for clarifying, Pierre. I'm just assuming that "everything as it is now" isn't suiting at least some people, and any time you change functionality for the better for someone it gets worse for someone else. So knowing what of the features you actually use and will notice changing is useful - I'm sure there are lots of obscure niggles about how the site works that only a subset of people use, or features that a lot of people use but don't really care about changing. (For what it's worth, I don't really care if the font changes slightly, and I doubt many others do even though everyone looks at the site. I use the HTML editor all the time, but I suspect most others don't.)

    While I feel your frustration:
    How long have you paid your subscription for? We're currently running with, I presume, the same functionality that you had when you last subscribed. Whatever state 2.0 is in when and if we switch to it, I doubt we'll be ready to switch over in a hurry. If the issue is that the site doesn't work as you paid for within the duration of your paid membership, I'm just suggesting that your membership may run out before the site updates. If you're worried about the sword of Damocles from the new site, it's much simpler for you and everyone else if you just don't resubscribe until you're happy with the direction (hopefully) rather than trying to get compensation. Not that it's any of my business, just trying to act as mediator, and I'm not fond of situations where the only people making money are lawyers.

    I'm absolutely sure that many members registered in order to ask a question or two and then disappeared without trace. That's unfortunate, but not exactly rare for online fora. I'd be astonished if the paid membership got close to that.

    I certainly share your concerns, but I don't think you need to feel you're not getting the service you paid for until (and if) the new site rolls out - though making it clear that you'll complain or won't resubscribe while the new site is not to your satisfaction is not a bad thing as a motivation to improve it. I'm hesitant about my own resubscription too. Are you doing something commercial with the site (referring clients to it) for example, or are you "just" worried about your membership fee? (The picture deletion is another matter - I hope you can get to the bottom of it, unless it was another case of bugs in the recent system rather than action by the administrators.)
     
  72. Why can't we take the subscription bitching off-thread?
     
  73. In short
    I paid the last subscription on August the 8th (the annual subscription is 9% of my pension)
    An administrator told me that my pictures were deleted by some administrator (some bug deleted only my four highest rated photos?!, ha)
    Commercial is only my unsuccessful trying to sell my photos through this subscribed membership
    I'm eager for corrections on the site, but it isn't a matter of design, when I say "as it is now" I mean the possibilities, the possibility of customization, the good overview etc for that's what I'm supposedly paying for!
    Read the rules here and estimate is it true that the administration can delete any account by its free will!
    And last, I'm subscribing only as a member of the community due to contribute to its well being, I have right as a non subscriber to upload many more of my present number of photos (based on my activity, as a commentator, 80.000 comments!)
     
  74. Pierre - I think we're all hoping that any updates to the site will retain the capabilities we need. I just hope you can stay to help influence it. I appreciate the magnitude of your contribution (as a fellow member), and that your subscription will take some time to run out. Will 2.0 be rolled out within the next year? Well, let's see - getting it to a state that people will accept feels, to me, as though it'll take a good while. All I'm suggesting is that I'd hold on for now (while it's definitely not worse) and try to influence where we're going - for all our sakes. If a 2.0 you're unhappy with is foisted on you before your membership expires, I certainly understand your desire to get refunded - though from a legal perspective I think you'd be relying on the good will of site management for that; trying to get a refund before that point seems premature to me, but I appreciate we're not talking about my money.

    I completely believe that administrators have the authority to delete any account or image - while I may not agree with every decision, we kind of have to trust them, given their track records and volunteer status. Still, I hope a polite request to a likely culprit might at least meet with an explanation - the moderators are largely reasonable people in my experience, at least given the pressure they're under.

    Apologies for any misinformation about the theory of a bug. I only mentioned it because a number of threads disappeared due to a misconfigured spam filter during the 2.0 roll-out, and there were many accusations that threads containing disagreement were preferentially being deleted. (They were, just not by the moderators - if a spam filter is triggered by writing in capitals, it'll pick up every time someone STARTS SHOUTING, which is exactly what happened in those threads.) If your missing photos didn't disappear during the 2.0 issues, I hope you can find out what happened, if only for your satisfaction.
     
  75. Pierre, your private battle doesn't belong in a public thread. You're wasting others' time.
     
  76. Thank you, Andrew!
    I said it all!

    PDE
     
  77. Censorship is always so refreshing!

    When content disappears without justifiable reason or even explanation, a contractual obligation has been
    breached. It may not be a very significant contractual obligation if money has not changed hands, but if
    there has been payment, I believe it is very clear that the aggrieved party morally and legally entitled to
    compensation. Jamie Kraft
     
  78. Gup

    Gup Gup

    I received an email alert that Jim Downs had posted a comment in this thread so I 'clicked' on the link back to here and find his comment is not posted at all. Further, I can't find a way to contact him to tell him. What happened to the contacting other members feature?
    So, not knowing Jim, I went to his contact page to find out what I could and was instead taken to another member's page, Justin Serpico. I tried several times with the same effect.
    I wonder if this version of P.net has also suffered some bumps and bruises during the change-back?
     
  79. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Jim Downs posted a response to a thread in the photo.net

    Pierre has contributed so much to this site over the years that he has a right to say anything he pleases. There are a handful of arrogant, self righteous moderators whom I believe have contributed mightily to driving people away from PN. Yesterday, I checked the list of the 200+ people I follow on the site. Nearly 2/3 of them have not contributed anything for over a year. This is not to suggest that the moderators are responsible for all the decline but the atmosphere here these days is far too tidy and sanitized. Let the Wild West reign again! I am truly puzzled as to why V.2. was allowed to go live. Five beta testers could have determined that it was far from ready. FREE PDE!​
     
  80. Gup,
    I received a note from an unidentified moderator a couple hours after my post saying it had been deleted. Not sure who Eric is or how the post got resurrected. The second sentence is probably a bit harsh and if someone wants to delete it that's okay by me...presuming the rest of the post is allowed to stand. Thanks for your interest. Jim
     
  81. Gup,
    I received a note from an unidentified moderator a couple hours after my post saying it had been deleted. Not sure who Eric is or how the post got resurrected. The second sentence is probably a bit harsh and if someone wants to delete it that's okay by me...presuming the rest of the post is allowed to stand. Thanks for your interest. Jim
    BTW, with respect to this forum, many users seem confused as to whether the forum relates to the creation of V2 of PN or the creation of websites in general. Who knows.
     
  82. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Jim, I'm glad they at least let you know they'd done it. I've been informed in the past myself, over the very last thread I started in the old Off Topic forum, I think. Photo net was a spirited, happening place back then. I considered reposting your deleted post myself but thought the better of it, in case you'd decided yourself to delete it. All Eric had to do was copy and paste your post from his email alert. Pretty straight forward. On the other hand, I was able to research your work and read for the first time the interview you did with Josh a few years ago regarding your travel experiences. Very enjoyable. You are a man after my own heart. :)
     

Share This Page