Photo.net, the site!

<p>Hi everyone.<br>

I have been a PN subscriber from year 2007. I cut my internet teeth on this site. I must acknowledge I have been able to hone my photography skills thanks largely to the excellent discussions and guidance PN forums provided. <br>

In year 2007 I came to know about PN when I was doing some net research whether to go Canon way or Nikon while converting to the digital photography. When I started out with my first digital camera, a Nikon D40x, I joined PN as a subscriber with a lot of enthusiasm. I posted my portfolio, chatted around in the forums and learned a lot about photography thanks to some stalwarts here in the administration as well as some enthusiastic and capable members. <br>

Those days one used to get a lot response to individual pictures posted which were really good. Within half an hour of posting a picture in critique forum one would get at least 6 to 8 ratings and as much critiques. Many a time I had the pleasure of getting into the Top rated photo ranks.<br>

Over the years I believe PN members have become more sedate. What I perceive now is that PN is still an excellent medium when forum discussions are concerned. One can still get an exciting discussion on photography subjects. Some exciting heated discussions too. <br>

But when it comes to pictures themselves, I feel the members' response is quite cold. A fairly good picture by any standards gets far fewer comments and clicks compared with other net forums. My recent pictures of California, Arizona and Utah have been languishing in my portfolio without much notice while the same ones have attracted thousands of clicks- in one case 30,000 plus- and innumerable comments on other forums.<br>

Then, the Nikon Wednesday Pic. I clearly remember, about two years back, each Wednesday thread used to attract 100 plus responses. Toady it hardly ever crosses 60-70. <br>

What could be the reasons that people are less interacting with photos?<br>

I guess one reason could be the display. Allow me to say the current PN display leaves a lot to be desired. Once uploaded you will not like your own photo. I don't know why but this does not happen with other forums. <br>

Another reason could be the lack of a proper Android/iOS app.<br>

People are on the move and they can very well keep in touch with the proceedings here on PN if a proper PN app was there. <br>

If one checks Alexa rankings, PN id doing worse day after day, and Alexa ranking is going southwards- from 4000 in mid 2012 to 10,000 in mid 2013, lately there is a slight uprise. Bounce rate is 65%, up 9%. Daily time on site is down 19 %.<br>

How fast does the site load? Alexa says "Very Slow", 90% of the sites are faster. <br>

So, what is PN doing about it? Does it not want to upgrade itself regarding the look and feel and come to the current standards set by the likes of Flickr and 500px? Many of PN's competitors are allowing Full res uploads. Their display of members' pics are slick and gorgeous. To top it all their administrators don't pare down their paying members by harsh comments and admonitions.<br>

I am posting this out of sheer care and concern about this photography forum of which I am a proud member and a concerned critique.</p>

 

<p>Apurva, I've noticed the same drop-off in discussions on individual photos as well. I try to do my best, and I see by the amount of critiques you make, you do as well. From what I understand from things having been said by the new administration, they are working on ways to improve site functionality, presentation style, and participation with regard to critiques. Last they posted about it, I believe they said the new designs and functions will be rolled out sometime around or after the new year. I'm really looking forward to the new features and design.</p>

<p>For the time being, I find that I develop more interactions with people about their photos and my photos when I comment constructively on theirs. I am more likely to get people who've looked at my portfolio due to comments I've made than due to photos I've posted in the critique or ratings queues.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess one reason could be the display. Allow me to say the current PN display leaves a lot to be desired. Once uploaded you will not like your own photo. I don't know why but this does not happen with other forums. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apparently in the many years you've been at PN since 2007, you forgot to learn about color management and why some of us who did learn use color managed browsers to view everyone's images which look drop dead gorgeous to me.</p>

<p>Seeing you didn't know this was happening with your PN gallery, I'm having a hard time relying on your opinion as an authority on the rest of what you've outlined about PN.</p>

<p>I like it here because I developed a "belief system" from reading the well thought out and intelligently written responses in these forums that has convinced me I'm among very smart people who can write and communicate effectively on a wide range of subjects (not just on photography) that can be quite complicated (i.e. color management). </p>

<p>I don't know who Alexia is but if she's dating I'ld like to know if she likes long walks in the park and eating Cheetos <br />"Cheezy Salsa Mix" cuz' I'm addicted to both. </p><div></div>

<p>Tim, kindly check out alexa.com and you will know! </p>

<p>I pretty much believe statistical internet sites such as Alexa.com like I believe everything I read in the paper.</p>

<p>I don't know where or how the alexa site acquires it's rating data because I didn't look for that info. But, I do think that characterizing the site loading time of 4+ seconds as "very slow" is a little misleading, even if true. I did a quick check of the loading time here: 1 second, consistently over several attempts. If that number is not reliable, what about the rest of the ratings?</p>

<p>In spite of that I did find this statement:</p>

<p><em>Good articles on equipment and techniques. Extensive galleries featuring portfolios of members. Articles useful at any skill level. Forum and user comments. A good starting point for a situation or equipment question</em>.</p>

<p>That seems more meaningful than the numbers...</p>

<p>(Tim, Cheezy Salsa Mix? Really? ;-)</p>

<p>"Unified View" is a pretty good barometer of what's happening on the site, and as anyone can see - it's incredibly equipment centric. It's all about this lens or that body or flash. Rarely is there an image oriented question. In addition, the answers to the questions being asked require little more than a glance at the owners manual from what I can only imagine are folks who refuse to read and are too lazy to do their homework. </p>

<p>As this industry atrophies to the low information photographer, we encourage this behavior by writing copious answers and justifying their sloth. There is a "beginners question forum" apparently that's not good enough as the same questions answered dozens time (too lazy to search?) just keep reappearing. These circumstances make for a predictably boring PN experience. I always ask myself on the way to the site " let's see what the idiots are up to today", I'm rarely disappointed and often appalled by the lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the craft.</p>

<p>It's really a shame, are moderators failing to monitor - or asked not to? Obviously one must fork over some cash to be included or even seen on the site, as members are ignored in deference to subscribers, a rather odd division of organization. PN seems very close to the Facebook model, with a great deal more to offer yet seems to not be able to get out of it's own way. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>(Tim, Cheezy Salsa Mix? Really? ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a fairly recent affliction, William. Last time I ate a bag of Cheetos was back in the Clinton administration. Cheezy Salsa Mix grabbed me and just wouldn't let go. Hey, don't knock it till ya' try it...uh...on second thought run, run like the wind if you ever see an unopened bag!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As this industry atrophies to the low information photographer, we encourage this behavior by writing copious answers and justifying their sloth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I tell ya' about intelligently and well written responses?! It's the quality, not quantity that matters at Photo.net.</p>

<p>Now why, you may ask, does this have value. You have to know something and know it well in order to say it with confidence and in the 9 years as a paying member reading and responding to quality responses as you've read above I've been able to gleem from this a confidence in what I know in order to speak not only online but in public as well with a confidence I never had before.</p>

<p>This site isn't just about photography. You do learn more things than you expected by being an active communicator here. 9 years ago and farther back in my 54 years, I could never formulate and write meaningful responses as I've demonstrated here. You have to believe you are talking to smart, receptive people to cultivate this kind of content.</p>

<p>My typing skills have improved immensely as well. I have a skills assessment test by a certified company to back that up.</p>

<p>And yet, here you are... ;-)</p>

<p><em>"I always ask myself on the way to the site " let's see what the idiots are up to today", . . . It's really a shame, are moderators failing to monitor"</em></p>

<p>Moderators of a site are important but so are the contributors. I try to take responsibility for both my photographic and my verbal contributions and know that the content and tone of what I offer goes a long way in making this site what it is.</p>

<p>Tim, my last remark was for Gary, not you - sorry!</p>

<p>William, thanks for clarifying but I did misinterpret in a good way your remark as referring to my surviving the Cheetos, and yet I am still here.</p>

<p>But I have to hand it to Fred for crafting a response as an admonishment towards Gary's salty tone that made it look like he was doing Gary a favor. Never seen a more innocuously written response. I don't know how he does it.</p>

<p>But I still like the way Gary wrote most of what he said except for his use of the word "idiots". Everybody has a different way of saying things, just got to role with it.</p>

<p>The members so far involved in this thread are not going to give you an answer why there are so few comments and ratings,they already highjacked the thread and they are talking about" cheetos".The reason there are so few comments and ratings is that the PAYING members who supplied them are gone.WHY,several reasons,ratings abuse,authoritarism, never listen to what your customers want,neglect,let the site run and it would sort itself out.thinking backwards instead of forwards,keeping rules and ideas from 4-5 years ago while the photo community industry move hugely forwards.</p>

<p>Well said, Harry - dittos.</p>

 

<p>Apurva, thanks again for bringing up the topic. It led me to your portfolio and to make a comment on one of your photos. I'll check back periodically to review your work. There is much offered there that is certainly worth taking a few good looks at.</p>

<p>Many members who used to provide rich commentary in discussion forums and image critique here, and actively shared their expertise and vision have been chased away over the years. Photo.net have some active members who will fiercely defend their own opinions and over time disagreement is reduced simply because those of different opinions will have left. This then leads to loss of diversity of opinion and perspective and much reduced volume of and value of discussion. One has to have a thick skin to contribute here especially if one has a different perspective from the mainstream. The production of the standard "normative" picture is encouraged as a goal here, rather than doing something that no one else has done before. <br>

<br />Picture threads such as Wednesday are active when people are allowed to and encouraged to comment on the pictures. Otherwise, they are relatively quiet in volume. I generally recommend discussing photographs with other people (both photographers and non-photographers) in person rather than with strangers online. I think it works a lot better that way.</p>

<p>This has the potential to go as nuclear as many of the recent threads in other parts of the site, but I congratulate everyone for maintaining a civil discussion and working to provide positive perspectives as opposed to simply blaming others.</p>

<p>I guess that my opinion gravitates more toward Ilkka's perspective than previous posts decrying the administration, both recent and past, as being the source of the decline. If it's at all relevant my time spent on the site is down significantly from previous years, due to finding that 'opposite' opinions are not well received and some of the feedback (or at least the words used in the feedback) has led me to believe that I don't need the virtual grief and should spend my time elsewhere, especially since I would allow myself to behave in ways I didn't like as a result. It's a reality that some people revel in arguments that have no potential outcome, and others would just as soon state their view and walk away. When I tried that in a recent thread I was excoriated for not continuing what I saw as a pointless argument - and that led me to drop the site completely for a while. I gave myself a time out, as it were. I have enough grief in my life without coming to a site that was supposed to help improve my photography, and the understanding of it, to get more grief than needed from people I don't know.</p>

<p>On the other, and very important, hand it's interesting that I've developed a couple of friendships on this site with people who clearly believe quite different things than I do about many aspects of life and photography, but who seem to be able to separate their opinions from how they treat others. So all in all that's been a real positive for me.</p>

<p>Just my perspective this afternoon.</p>

<p>One of the most reflective posts I've come across in recent days is from Gup Jeffries regarding the Off-Topic forum which I'd like to quote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"After 50 years of taking photographs, shooting professionally for 25 of them, I don't have much interest in many of the facets of Photo.net anymore. I don't need to ask many questions, study tutorials, read reviews, enter contests, etc. but I do enjoy conversations with intelligent people from different backgrounds and experiences who all share a like-mindedness in our love of photography." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="/off-topic-forum/00c4tj">http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00c4tj</a><em><br /></em></p>

<p><br />PN is almost 20 years old and has lived through the changing Internet world almost from the beginning. Many of our members have been around for 10, 15+ years and witnessed significant changes in the photography industry, the Internet, and many contributing factors resulting in today's site dynamics. How much of the OP's implication is attributable to changes within ourselves or site management is debatable, but it's probably fair to say that to some degree, many of us long time members are holding back the growth of PN because we've evolved, but we're not quite sure how the site should evolve to accommodate all these changes happening around us at breakneck speeds.</p>

<p>From my vantage point, I'd like my investment of time, effort and energy into the site to bear fruit, or at least remain relevant to the extent that satisfies my needs. PN is a community-driven site, and as a community member I have the expectation that my fellow members share similar goals, therefore I have a responsibility to do my part in order to ensure that my contribution does not in any way undermine others' efforts or indeed sabotage site admin's effort in community-building.</p>

<p>Gup took the words right out of my mouth, but as much as I've evolved and no longer find myself contributing to galleries via photography, I've found a niche in a small corner where I can share stuff that hopefully encourages the pursuit of photography as an interdisciplinary art form by touching on as many disciplines as you might imagine, along with the occasional post in forums where I think I might be helpful.</p>

<p>I can't speak for everyone, but I'd like to think that our common objective isn't lost by our sometimes dissatisfaction with our surroundings, that PN can be as much a home base as any other site, albeit imperfect, and I challenge anyone to point to a site that is perfect. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have left this site twice. Both times it was because of the moderation. I don't think one should expect any changes. I recently wrote to the Admins and they did not bother to answer me. They DID however just send me a reminder to send them some more money.</p>

<p>The OP is correct in pointing our SEO statistics. The site is loosing popularity. This is not true of photographic sites in general. There are several that are growing and becoming more profitable. Its all about clicks brothers and sisters. More clicks, more money. It is almost as simple as that.</p>

<p>The moderators have succeeded in creating a site that is almost devoid of controversy. It may be nice and fluffy for all of us to sit cross-legged on the floor and sing Kumbaya but it doesn't sell clicks. Can any of us get our minds wrapped around the fact that the owners have actually allowed moderators to change the wording in a contributor's post and not even note that they had done it or even notify the poster that they had? That is totally unacceptable. This is not just my opinion. Look at this thread. Why is it that almost all of the people who posted here too a shot at the moderation? Read David Chan's post. Read Ilkka's post. Harry, Gary. Is the administration getting the picture yet? If one person complains about the moderators it is just sour grapes. If two people complain it is to be expected. If three people complain it is.......well. Pick a number. How many have to complain before the powers that be see that there is really a problem? And how many have to leave? I wonder how long this post of mine will survive?</p>

<p>We should be having spirited discussions. We should have knock down drag out verbal fights about issues pertaining to photography. These will bring eyeballs and eyeballs will bring money. We should review new cameras and be quick to praise and quick to criticize. If one of the camera companies does something with which we disagree we should feel free to slam them for it. A certain other site does it and is 4 times as popular as this one. </p>

<p>I agree with the comments about critiques. I used to do them but rarely anymore. What is the point? It is not really encouraged. It is just there. I took down my bio and never post photographs. I took my bio down because I felt that my opinions should stand on their own and be openly debated. What I have done or not done does not entitle me to special consideration one way or the other. I do not post a portfolio because I see little point in it. But my point in saying this is to suggest to the administration that they should openly encourage these activities. They don't now. </p>

<p>So if I were the boss I would ask myself this question. What do we do to catch people doing something good? Do we reward people for critiquing photos? Do you drop frequent posters a note thanking them for a particularly thoughtful post? Have I told my moderators to do that? Have I asked them to go lightly with their heavy handed comments and be cheerleaders as well as axe men? Do I survey the people who leave to see why? Do I have a methodology to capture who they are? Do I send an email to supporters who do not review and ask them why? Not a fancy survey but a personal email from the boss to them?</p>

<p>Why is photo.net on the middle of page two on a google search for photography and photography advice? That is purgatory. Page one or die. Who is my SEO person and what has she/he done for me lately? Why does 'photography advice' not even show up on my search engine top 5? Why am I not on page one for "photography techniques" when I have one of the most content rich site in that regard on the internet. When I had trouble with a certain site I own dropping off page one I called in the big-guns and boy did I get an education. And I am back on page one with just a few simple changes. </p>

<p>This thread should be a wake up call for Photo.net management. They should write to everyone who had the nerve to post in it and thank them for their time. They should praise the OP for starting this thread. They should realize that some of go beyond giving them very good content for free. We actually pay for the privilege. The more of us who stop doing that the lower the site is going to sink. Or they can pay someone to do it......</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The moderators have succeeded in creating a site that is almost devoid of controversy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> That's a good thing. People want good advice on photography. If you want controversy, there are plenty of political sites to where you can get your controversy on. <br /> <br /> This is supposed to be a useful site. I visit a number of sites for useful information. I need to fix my toilet, patch stucco, figure out where the ground loop is, understand why Chromecast isn't working. I don't want controversy, I want to solve problems. That's what photo.net is for. Not to be your personal argument platform. Plenty of places for you to go other than here since that's your goal.</p>

<p>And, in the end, this is a photography site. Photography is about photographs. You don't seem to have any, so it appears that "controversy" is your sole interest. I would suggest that there are far better places to spend your time.</p>

<p>Wow! Not a word about how to make better photographs in this entire thread started by the OP who complains and gets everyone else to agree that this site just isn't concerned about photography but had to be advised on tagging their gallery photos so they looked better. I'm the only one that gave advise on how to make their photograph appear better and I get slammed for making a Cheetos joke.</p>

<p>That's rich.</p>

<p>Here, go play with this...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00c4nr</p>

<p>...no one else seems interested and I worked my a$$ off doing the research. I got bupkis. </p>

<p>Another pithy response, very well said Rick. For what it's worth I concur completely. Personal evolution is one thing, as Micheal pointed out, however, there is a limit to how far down we can de-vovle to answer a typical question such as: "Does my ISO setting effect both jpgs and raw files alike?" or currently "Is Fill-flash just flash on lowest power?". How on earth could a moderator not move these to the beginners forum?</p>

<p>I truly believe that this constant flow of empty-headed questions is frustrating and aggravating for we who, have paid our dues in the craft, to constantly have to wade through in an effort to discover a post of interest. Of course these folks deserve answers but the answer should be directions to a resource that would satisfy their needs - not a time consuming short-cut to further misunderstanding.</p>

<p>I guess that's a part of it for me, PN has become bogged down with lazy new-bee's who have found a short-cut to quick answers and are taking full advantage of more experienced well intended folks. It's kinda like the "give him a fish or show him how to fish" concept. I'm tired of being forced to carefully provide information that I acquired in 30 years of pro work to people who haven't got a clue, and information that following a simple search is readily available here and elsewhere on the web.</p>

<p>I realize that standards are difficult to establish and maintain on a site such as this, yet considering the metrics, it might be time to re-evaluate the model. There seems to be a great deal of concern over civility and kindness. Perhaps, the frustration I'm and others are experiencing is driving that lack of patience to some degree. Might it be the "Are we there yet" syndrome? How many times must we suffer embarrassing questions from people too ignorant to even see how embarrassing they are! I gets very old and is very sad. Want your pros to stick around - then get the kindergärtners back in their room so the adults can play.</p>

 

<p>So I make a post filled with suggestions and a moderator posts a personal attack:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is supposed to be a useful site. I visit a number of sites for useful information. I need to fix my toilet, patch stucco, figure out where the ground loop is, understand why Chromecast isn't working. I don't want controversy, I want to solve problems. That's what photo.net is for. Not to be your personal argument platform. Plenty of places for you to go other than here since that's your goal.<br>

And, in the end, this is a photography site. <strong> Photography is about photographs. You don't seem to have any, so it appears that "controversy" is your sole interest. I would suggest that there are far better places to spend your time.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>See that ownership? Could I have made my point any better? This is your moderator. Since he obviously believes that his opinion is the only correct one and that he is the sole arbiter of what that correct opinion is, why should the rest of us contribute? News flash Jeff. There are a variety of ways to solve problems. Not one. Those differing opinions create controversy. If there are not heated discussions in the advice forums it can only be because the moderators are pounding it down. And they are. Clearly Jeff doesn't like controversy. He alone knows what is best for the readers. </p>

<p>So the ball is in your court owners? What do you want. A milk toast site with 2,428 posts on whether to buy a D4 or a horse? <br>

Jeff felt he could deliberately insult me and ignore the hundreds of careful and patient posts that he full well knows that I have made to help new photographers and others. Did he acknowledge that? Nope. He feels it is his job to deliberately insult me and suggest I leave. </p>

<p>Well ownership. Are you there? Did you appreciate how I was treated? Are you reading these posts? I am virtually certain you are not. You don't even read your emails. You sent me a letter telling me you want my money again this year. Your moderator told me, in so many words, to get lost. Which is it? You tell me what you want. My guess is that there is nobody home.</p>

<p>No doubt this post will be deleted. That is what usually happens when someone challenges the moderators. Even when the good of the site is the goal.</p>

<p>There is no personal attack. THis is why it's a problem here. The post should be deleted. You haven't given any reason why this site should be about "controversy" rather than photography. That's what you want. Find a playground where controversy is the name of the game.</p>

"I would suggest that there are far

better places to spend your time."

 

Disturbing comment!

 

Something one should always tell

Customers!

 

Advice maybe I should see fit to take.

 

After all, most of those that have rubbed

me the wrong way around here lately

didn't have much to show in their

galleries either, but certainly had lots of

arrogance!