Picture posting/turnover requirement

Can't post images but present yourself as the non sur plus of photography and

participate in forums, often with the poison pen and the cynical ego? My

preferences would be: No postings allowed in ANY forums except for the

feedback forum and W/NW unless you have a certain number of images in your

folder or within a forum such as "no words" (Which can be fun and informative

to look at). Those images have to be refreshed, by adding to, changing,

updating, within a certain time period. If you don't, your ability to

participate will be gradually scaled back, paying member or not. This would

trim back the intellectual elite who like to "participate" but feel that

they're too good to post images on photo.net. A basic quota would be at least

3 images per month.

John,

 

In order to be a good literature critic, one needn't have the ability to write the 'great novel' or to be a great critic of poetry, one needn't have the ability to write great poetry.

 

Sometimes the skills to create something of greatness are not the same as those which allow persons to critique, and sometimes those who have the intellectual power to critique can be valued members of the community.

 

I remember a certain (almost universally reviled) member (not by me) whose ratings were intellectually honest to the bone, but who downrated almost everybody's photographs to the point that they equate almost the same as they rate today -- and in fact think that his ratings actually would rate higher than many of the ratings given under today's new rating system.

 

He may be out there lurking and rating away as an anomymous rater . . . and not too long ago, I saw a wistful call (almost a fondness it seemed) for that persons's ratings, compared to the disarray of today, because they were intellectually honest.

 

That particular rater (and all the older members will know exactly of whom I write), was blunt, sometimees rude, but exceedingly intellectually honest in his ratings and as he once wrote me, he didn't submit his work for fear he would be downrated out of retribution (as he had heard from other members), not for any lack of ability.

 

People join Photo.net for various reasons. I know of one person who is an excellent critic who is hampered by lack of good equipment, but who is a most articulate critic -- who wants to downrate or 'ban' him because he is not a steady uploader.

 

And what about Jock Sturges? He now prefers not to upload his images for reasons that are well discussed, yet the quality of his critiques were among the highest ever submitted to Photo.net. They were stunning in their quality; simply outstanding.

 

Would you ban him for not uploading images?

 

It seems that from a 'gut' level banning discussion by non-uploaders has a certain appeal, but that appeal seems to break down when one examines it more closely, and I think the Administration has examined it in that detail.

 

With respect, for I do respect you and your work.

 

John (Crosley)

Surprisingly I would say: Yes I would trim him back. I've heard these lame "elite" excuses many many times, and in the past under different systems at photo.net they might have had some validity. But Brian has changed the system that allowed this abuse quite a while ago. IF you're fearful for your images, but not fearful to be an internet Napoleon with the pen, then I think you have to pay the price. The vast majority of us participate AND post images, including rank beginners and advanced experts. If you rate yourself so good as to be beyond photographic participation, I think that your participation needs to be adjusted accordingly, paying member or not, patron or not, moderator or not.

Fearing for my images? Fat chance!

 

I am fortunate to have a group of professionals and very good amateurs who tell me the truth. And I take photographs for me -- not for you or anyone else. Many are of people who would not want their face plastered all over the world. There are a few I'm interested in PN members) and I send them photos from time to time. Not for critique but because I think they'll be interested in either the topic or the work itself. I rarely send photos to my friends and/or family but when I do, I make a print and away it goes. The exception is pics of my cats and my friends are, for the most part, cat people who enjoy these. Most people don't.

 

Although I do not have an art degree, I pursued one at one time (before I really considered how I'd make a living)and have 90 hours in art history, drawing, painting and graphic arts. I can critique photographs and do so for my friends. I don't here. I won't here.

 

There is a whole world of knowledgeable people who will forget more about photography here on PN than most will ever know, who have no pics posted, nor will they, who share their expertise rather tirelessly. I've learned a carload about photography here. But I can also say I haven't learned anything I didn't already know before joining PN about color, composition, or lighting. So for me to sit and look at and/or critique photos for the constant ongoing bickering that results, well, it just isn't a starter.

 

What you're trying to create is a closed, hermetically sealed little capsule where you will just talk to each other about --well, each other. The evening prayrer would be, "Bless me, my wife, my son, his wife, we four, no more." Hermetically sealed groups die a slow death.

 

PN will implode because of the expectations of the current members.

 

Conni

I hope there are more people reading this thread than are posting.

 

An side on the poison pen comment. I have often been dismayed at the ascerbic, mean spirited and outright rude postings that are all too common in the PN threads. I won't pretend to know what makes these people seem so bitter. Granted, often the comments in questions are to very naive questions. But unless you were born from the womb an acknoweledged photography master who yourself never made a mistake or asked a naive question then if you have no patience for beginners then please just pick another thread and move on. There's no reason for incivility and beginners need mentoring, not sarcasm.

 

From one who makes a good living at this and is still very much learning.

All these threads that complain about people having no photos posted always seem to have a subtext; the subtext being the inability to reciprocate negative comments or ratings.

 

Personally, I don't care if people have photos posted. I have received valuable information from people both with and without photos posted. I fail to see how posting photos makes ones contributions more or less valuable.

Nigel - I don't know if I can allow your comment to remain in this thread. I fear it's dangerously close to the truth...

I think Johns point is that _some_ people are overly poisonous and cynical in their critiques, commentary, and forum usage.

 

Those who are helpful, courteous, and constructive - remember there's no need for posion, and yet have no images posted he's just fine with.

 

If the sum total of a members input is vitriol and eliteist snobbery, why should they be allowed to continue? At least if they could practice what they preach AND SHOW US, then we may be able to swallow the bitter pill.

 

I wholy understand that the ability to critique has no connection to the ability to practice, but this thread is about those who are just plain rude.

 

There are 2 courses of action available, the present one, or what John suggests - unfortunately Johns method also does a drive by on all those who are making a posive contribution as well as those who are just a bunch of tossers.

This suggestion, as I noted before, would be across the board, no exceptions. If you like to critique, participate in forums or rate, you have to show some photographic performance once in a while. Certainly 3 images per month is not a major demand. There are some great folks with positive attitudes such as Gene M. which his old cameras and old film development that are engaging and informative. There are beginners who ask for help and get none, there are those who try and game the system. Its all part of the photo.net main street. So let's all play on the street with the same set of rules.

And you dictate the rules? Wrong game.

 

Conni

Constance, in your case you would have to present 3 images, sooner or later, otherwise you could only post in this forum and W/NW. (Its a suggestion; I don't make rules on photo.net)

Note that they don't have to be subject to any kind of rating. Folks could critique, and as you know very well, photo.net has rules on critique behavior which are currently well adhered to. Why? because even many beginners, both adults and children and whatever in between make the effort to go out, take images and post them on photo.net. For some, I am sure its a piece of cake, for others, it more than likely a very stressful experience. But; they DO it, and I find that all of us should DO it, and suffer the results or enjoy them, good or bad. If we feel that our own images suck, photo.net allows us to easily remove them. Why should there be a certain group that feels it can engage with the rest of us on their own terms? if everybody played by that rule, photo.net would go belly up within a week.

Belly up?

 

Unlikely.

 

There are thousands of us here who contribute regularly where/when we feel we are useful. If sharing your photos is satisfying to you -- show away. I don't share everything with everybody indiscriminately. Photography is my hobby, for my personal satisfaction. I do not have any desire to share it with a bunch of strangers.

 

And that's part of what makes PNetters unhappy. You call it a 'community' when any of you can be anyone you want to to all the others who may/may not be what or who they seem to be. Yet you treat it like a cozy group that grew up in the same block together and share some personal background that you don't really have. This is an international group of almost entirely strangers. That's what the Web is. When a site develops groups that view themselves as 'community' or 'family', feelings get hurt, people start wanting to develop rules that would protect their illusions (friends wouldn't hurt my feelings, now would they?)

 

To maintain success, a site sets rules and doesn't let subgroups alter them to protect their personal view of what the site is supposed to be.

 

Go to the library and get a book on organizational behavior and read the chapter(s) on group formation, development and maintenance. It's pretty interesting and explains a lot of what happens, not just here and in live groups, but in the evolving Internet groups.

 

It intrigues me that any of us (except for the few, very few), who have met face-to-face, believe we 'know' people we frequent with on the Web. We know only the persona they are posting up. Heck, who knows whether the photos posted were taken by the poster or his/her sister or friend? Probably most are but not all. PN is a great stage and thousands of us tread the boards every day in search of something. And it's also not unrealistic that we will try to change it to make it suit what we want.

 

You are here primarily to post photos and rate/critique photos. That's fine. I'm not. My reasons for being here are just as legitimate as your's.

 

The gigantic mass of PN subscribers never post a photo nor rate a photo (look at the numbers). I'd bet you could almost recite a list of those who write constantly here about ratings/changing ratings/ bots/ drive-bys/abuse, by heart. It's almost always the same people.

 

There is a great Silent Majority that is pretty happy with the site as it stands.

 

Conni

Constance, having worked for some large corporations, I'm quite familiar with organizational behavior, both the theoretical from the library shelf and the real world. In organizations, companies, clubs, cliques etc, there are followers, hard workers, stars, moons in total eclipse, manipulators and psychopaths. My suggestion here is to pay homage to the hard workers who fill the photo submittals, and who are often referred to by others in less than glowing terms, a practice which I feel shows photo.net's heritage origins from a somewhat snooty social class. (I remember college computer classes where teachers constantly referred to non-college folks as stupid). I know that you don't like to post images as do many others as well, and since photo.net rarely if ever listens to ANY advice from ANYBODY, the likelihood of this change actually being implemented is close to zero. (BTW this "not-listening" is also an aspect of organizational behavior, the less said the better). However, I sure would like to know why so many photographic experts lack the fortitude to show their images on photo.net. The statement "because I choose not to" simply won't work for me. Its like somebody coming on the bus, but always insisting on entering through the exit and then working their way up front for a ticket. BTW Maslow is till on my shelf at home along with some others. Great reading, but reality is often different, as even Phil Greenspun found out when corporate sharks walked off with "his" company. Luckily he won in court. Others don't, most others don't.

It's only your perception that those who post photos are "the hard workers." Those of us who post information also providee hard work for the site. If PN just hosts photos, it loses half or more of its iinterest group. Don't lose sight of all parts working for the good of the whole.

 

As Mary said in another post yesterday, "there is no reason to write post after post restating the same things," so I've stated my position and I'm done.

 

The site doesn't listen because for the most part, thrre is no reason to overcorrect for every desire to "have it my way only." Most companies, countries and people fail because they try to please everyone. And despite the old saying, the customer isn't always right. The customer is only right for their own desires but not for the success of the organization either long- or short-term.

 

Now, I have to deal with bankers and realtors because I have to buy a house. And yes, I've photographed a bunch of them so I can look at them again when I get back home.

 

Conni

Excellent points, Constance. Well said.<div></div>

And amazingly, some things have happened. I am satisfied.