PN Participation

<p>On August 14th, Anders Hingel posted a thread concerning the - pardon me for using the name - Off Topic forum. If you haven't yet seen it, here's a link to make it easy. http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00clXE</p>

<p>Of the 64 posts on the thread, at least a few concerned the future of PN and how to encourage member participation. Earlier today, I peeked in at the POTW forum. This week's selection is an image of Tony Hadley's. See http://www.photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00cnoh. As of this writing, there are exactly four (4) responses, including my own.</p>

<p>Tony has been a PN member since July, 2006. From then until now, he has provided 39,153 comments on images posted for critique, and has requested comments on only 789 of his own. His work clearly stands on its own merit. He truly is a gifted photographer. And his thanks for making such huge contributions to the site is a grand total of four responses to his image being selected as POTW?!</p>

<p>I cannot and will not take credit for the following suggestion; it's been voiced already many times. The POTW needs to be placed prominently on PN's homepage, instead of being buried within 44 forums. Admin would be wise to place the POTD as a forum category, or just do away with the silly thing.</p>

<p>C'mon, folks, let's get with the proverbial program. If anyone else has any constructive suggestions to make, here's a good opportunity.</p>

>>> The POTW needs to be placed prominently on PN's homepage, instead of being buried within 44

forums.

 

Gallery -> Photos of the Week

<p>You're obviously correct, Brad. The POTW indeed is mentioned in the Gallery menu.</p>

<p>Yet I still am convinced that participation in POTW discussions will increase if it's placed on the homepage. Let's face it, lots of people operate in accordance with the principle of parsimony. It's easier to jump in to a discussion that's smacking one in the face than if it takes more steps to get there.</p>

<p>I'm guessing there are a number of reasons for declines in overall participation, including on the POTW critiques/comments. Some are recent, others long term. In no particular order:</p>

<ol>

<li>More folks are using mobile devices. Compared with social media sites, photo.net still isn't optimized for mobile access, particularly for uploading/attaching photos.</li>

<li>Some folks are discouraged by frequent annoying glitches that interfere with simple tasks like copying/pasting text, as described in this recent thread: "<a href="/site-help-forum/00cnvz?unified_p=1">How to copy/paste in PN</a>"</li>

<li>August is often the late summer vacation time for many families, followed by the frantic getting-kids-back-to-school rush.</li>

<li>Competition. There are lots of generalized and niche photography sites. Folks buy into a new camera system, find a niche equipment site they enjoy, and have less time to spend on photo.net contributing to POTW and other discussions. (I was tempted after my initial rush of enthusiasm over the Fuji X-system, but decided to just lurk on a few niche sites and not register or participate. Too much of a time sink.)</li>

<li>Equipment saturation. Canikon have reached the point of Model.x incremental changes. There's not much left to argue about with equipment. For most of us, every camera manufacturer makes cameras that meet or exceed our skill levels. What are we supposed to do now... talk about... photography? Eeewww.</li>

</ol>

<p>Regarding the POTW...<br>

I'm not sure how much difference the home page placement matters. After umpteen years here I rarely even look at the home page. My default startup page is the unified forum view to check for (1) spammers, (2) new posts, (3) new replies - especially ancient posts that have recently been bumped, often a sign of spammers. After that quick check I may look at other stuff if I have time - interesting new posts/replies, the POTW, etc.</p>

<p>The POTW has been virtually unmoderated for a long time. It took a lot of effort to cultivate a consistently constructive tone of high value comments and lively discussions that weren't merely arguments. Mary did that deftly and almost invisibly. Without that cultivation the POTW has often veered wildly from low participation to often irretrievable digressions into ad hominem territory - not mere "attacks", but frequently impugning the motivations of the photographers and other folks participating in critiques. Not necessarily the worst sin in debate, but it may have seemed abrasive and off-putting to folks who might have offered some comments on the photos, but didn't care to have their opinions publicly scrutinized and dissected.</p>

<p>Also, as with many sites - Flickr, 500px, etc. - most photo.net "critiques" are generic praise. Who wants to be the wet blanket to point out the emperor has no clothes, the photo is oversaturated to posterization, the HDR cranked to 11 jacked up the noise level, the architectural study is badly askew without any apparent artistic intent, or that it's mostly postcard stuff? Even I don't want to be that guy. So I prefer to comment on the more offbeat stuff that's generally ignored.</p>

<p>Regarding number of posts on any thread - that's never been a reliable indication of thread quality, topic value or organic/spontaneous community participation. It's one of the internet's mysteries. Some quality threads engender extensive discussions, while other worthy topics get little attention. But almost any thread, regardless of intrinsic merit, can be prolonged indefinitely with bumping and clever tactics. Even in a slow month a few other fairly recent threads have attracted quite a few posts.</p>

<p>Almost every thread in the Philosophy forum draws a lot of thoughtful posts. I won't cite 'em all here because there are usually a few every month.</p>

<p>From other forums:<br>

*<a href="/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00clBk">good camera for taking photos of jewelry</a><br>

*<a href="/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00clZm">Equipment needed please help! </a><br>

*<a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cktB">Uploading to Vendors, sRGB or ADOBE RGB? </a>by Tim Joseph | 2014-08-08 | <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cktB">60 Responses</a><br>

*<a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00clKe">Help me choose a MF Scanner </a>by Daniel Katz | 2014-08-12 | <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00clKe">75 Responses</a><br>

*<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cmgk">Nikon D750 </a>by Tim Holte <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a> | 2014-08-23 | <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cmgk">79 Responses</a><br>

*<br>

*<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cleP">Landscape 'gardening' </a><br>

*<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cmNm">Weekly Discussion # . . . Margaret Bourke-White </a><br>

*<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00clcl">What happened to a little gratitude?!</a><br>

*<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00clVL">When do you draw the line when buying used</a><br>

*<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cl0z">"If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.” -Kenneth Jarecke</a><br>

*<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00ckXz">Selfies with homeless people</a></p>

 

<p>I too have the unified forum as the default for PN. I do like to have a look at the POTW but often seem to miss it even I scan the unified forum list every morning. I come across it more by random chance than if I look for it. How about making it a sticky post at the top the way other admin posts are? Thanks to Brad, at least I now where to look for it :)</p>

<p>I agree with Michael, but as some of the responses show clearly there are those that are unwilling to change anything. This is what happens when a thing stagnates, or maybe it is what causes the stagnation.<br>

One mentioning the 'Philosophy' thread as having many thoughtful responses, I would suggest that all those comments are made by a very tiny number of the same people. I have witnessed how newcomers, not knowing the 'traditions' get squeezed out very quickly. This is the case in a couple of other long running sections as well. <br>

Some judicious experimentation is what keeps something like a forum or blog interesting, when forgotten so is the forum.</p>

<p>I have about 160 pictures in my gallery. I don't post there much anymore because, compared to Facebook or other sites, it is difficult to post. There is still no direct LR to PN method to load pictures. The 750 pixel long side limitation in fora keeps me from posting pictures to the Canon Thursday forum. I do not want to spend time re-sizing and losing quality just to be on PN. I can post any size picture to DP and it gets sized and saved in my gallery and can be viewed full page. I applaud the removal of "off topic". On top of a place to bash my country, it promoted argument and emotional insults. As Jake said above about philosophy it promotes a clubish, cliquish, exclusionary group. There is a limited group of people who seem to monopolize some fora, however, that's good in specific areas like old cameras but not in non-technical areas. I come here for photo information not to debate the issues of the day.</p>

<p>I like give and take as well as anybody and love to participate in it. You all may not like this and may disagree but I think in some areas PN is an unfriendly place where pedants live. It is also a place, particularly in philosophy where long, rambling self absorbed writing by a few predominates. I think there are a lot of members that never participate but regularly visit PN. An effort could be made to get them to broaden their participation. </p>

<p>I have been on the site for going on eight years. It clearly is not the robust site that it was when I came in. I know that the new owners have made strides in picture posting and have calmed the site down. They are making an effort. In some ways it is an unfriendly site where not much personal contact is made. </p>

<p>I can site few people that I have gotten to know here and exchange dialogue with but not many over my tenure here. Being able to make a few long distance friends is one of the things that initially drew me to the site. Back finally to the subject. Make pictures easy. I would like to easily take pictures from my gallery to post on other fora. Place the weekly photo on the home page. Take a look at DP, Facebook, Flickr and other picture sites and see where we are losing ground. Despite what I have said above I am a dedicated member of this site and I visit it once a day. Please, more Bob Atkins reviews. We are far behind other sites. Remember what Douglas MacArthur said, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away." I am concerned that PN is just fading away. </p>

<p>When I received Photo of the Week earlier this year I was not even aware it still existed, since it had disappeared from prominence, and the e-mail that was said to have informed me it was coming my way somehow never made its way into my e-mail in-box even though I get all other PN missives and none go into my SPAM folder.</p>

<p>In any case, I found the response substantial, but mainly limited to die-hard Photo.net regulars who had a particular point to make -- mostly critical. That was not a problem and probably their criticism had a point, but having had two prior photos named Photo of the Week and featured prominently, I found the response in views almost totally anemic which belied the number of critical responses I got.</p>

<p>Frankly, I only found out about this Photo of the Week by trolling the 'commented on photos' feature which I do very regularly -- otherwise it might have completely slipped my notice.'</p>

<p>That never would have happened before, as even if in prior times though I didn't always open to the PN main page, I did open it several times a week, and it would have been hard to miss a photo of mine. In the two prior cases, that's how I found out a photo of mine had been chosen Photo of the Week, and I found out quickly.</p>

<p>The initial two photos of the week got overwhelming 'view' responses with the first from eight or so years ago (under a different counting system) received an overwhelming response, but that response included 'thumbnail views' as well as 'clicked views' which means its 'view' count can't be compared to anything since the count system changeover eliminated 'thumbnail' views.</p>

<p>In the second Photo of the Week's choice a number of years later, the response in views was still above 12,000 clicked views, I think, with somewhere over 30 ratings. The previous Photo of the Week had over 50 ratings.</p>

<p>Now I realize that each photo is unique and that comparing one photo of the week with another is 'apples and oranges' to some great extent, but when I try to find some way to compare the three, I suggest the most common indicator of interest and viewership is not just 'views' but also ratings. </p>

<p>The first received over 50 ratings, the second over 30 ratings and the third 21 ratings but while the first received record views, the second (clicked views only) received about 12,000 clicked views (now 16,000+), the third Photo of the Week received 21 ratings and views that still number (clicked views) less than 2,000 even today. </p>

<p>Clearly something has changed even accounting for the 'apples and oranges' issue.</p>

<p>Granted the third Photo of the Week was what I consider the weakest of the three, but there is a substantial difference between over 10,000 'views' and far fewer than 2,000 views, and I attribute that difference to placement of Photo of the Week to a 'minor' place on the 'forum' jump - a place so minor that I was not even aware it existed.</p>

<p>Now, I obviously don't live for Photo of the Week, but I enjoy the feature. If I truly quested for Photo of the Week, I think my first post on this service might have qualified for Photo of the Week, but I did not seek critique which was required for eligibility. I knew that photo was my best and didn't need to be told. I still think so.</p>

<p>I offer my views because I've been here now just over 10 years and have had my photos chosen three times, so I have some perspective, and perhaps through my experience have formed a qualified point of view.</p>

<p>That point of view includes this: </p>

<p>Photo of the Week, for all its numerous flaws, for the many years I have been a member here was a much-awaited feature. Like the chosen photo or dislike it, there was something to discuss, and discussion is what critique is all about.</p>

<p> Attaboys were discouraged and even essentially banned from comments in Photo of the Week discussion after passage of time, so the discussions over time tended to the more serious as the rules got stricter, and that was for the better.</p>

<p>Again, just as there is no true comparison of my three chosen photos, there was no easy comparison of the photos chosen each week, but one thing was certain, there was something that bound Photo.netters together -- common awareness by most of what photo was chosen, and a viewpoint by a great number of members of whether they liked or disliked the chosen photo or had some other viewpoint.</p>

<p>That worked for the benefit of the community, as it was a strong community feature. It bound the community together. </p>

<p>Photo of the Week identified in large part Photo.net.</p>

<p>Sure, some people took Photo of the Week to be a 'prize' - and in some ways it was, and in other ways it was not. My last Photo of the Week (if one reads the critiques) was more of a punching bag than a prize, but that's part of what happens when one exposes one's work to critiques, and I had a good share of able critiquers who one way or another happened to find my last Photo of the Week, despite its less than optimal placement.</p>

<p>It is a cardinal rule of the Internet that with each 'click' one loses viewers, and placement for optimal viewership involves the least amount of clicking, which means that if one wants optimal exposure, one chooses the 'main page' or 'front page' for exposure and 'high up' at that.</p>

<p>Removing Photo of the Week from the opening PN page -- a feature I looked forward to every week for enjoyment and curiosity -- was, in my view, a mistake.</p>

<p>By doing so, PN lost a strong identifier. Like it or hate it, Photo of the Week was Photo.net.</p>

<p>Moving the feature caused mainly die-hards of the feature to make extra clicks to locate the feature to find the photo, and in doing so, many, many viewers were discouraged and didn't follow through, or like me thought the feature had been eliminated. Newer members didn't know it existed or thought it of minor importance - and that probably was by design.</p>

<p>I suggest that someone in Administration made the decision to kill off or diminish the feature, and that certainly appears to be what has happened -- ratings appear to be down for chosen photos, and I am sure that views are way down too.</p>

<p>I value the feature and would restore it to prominence, but this is a private site, run by entrepreneurs who have total and complete control over placement of everything on their site (not our site but theirs) and it is totally within their purview where to put a feature.</p>

<p>If they ask me, I would restore Photo of the Week to prominence by placing it on the main page in a place of prominence, and ensure that the 'elves' (whoever they are) remain in control of the choice or be restored to the choice. My last Photo of the Week, I felt was far from my best work, and although worth critiquing, I had other work that might have been a better candidate for my best and still offered a good opportunity for critique.</p>

<p>I'm a strong advocate of this site, but I sense that viewership and membership is dropping off (you can write me privately for my views on why, as I won't put them in print), and that worries me.</p>

<p>I suggest restoral of Photo of the Week to its former prominence might be part of the process of re-invigorating Photo.net, especially to those members who might feel that something of the spirit of Photo.net has disappeared as the feature was one of THE MOST FAMILIAR OF ALL PHOTO.NET features.</p>

<p>I feel its removal to the site hinterlands has been a test that has not worked out well and now that removal should be reviewed, and my view is it should be reversed.</p>

<p>I note that in my last Photo of the Week, discussion was dominated by long-term members, and that I was not well aware of the presence of new members at all. Photo of the Week has proved to be of such strong potential that it can draw in both new and long standing IF they are allowed easy exposure to it.</p>

<p>Coke tried ditching Coca Cola and introduced 'New Coke'. </p>

<p>Look what happened.</p>

<p>Photo.net exiled Photo of the Week and left many members feeling rudderless and feeling dispossessed, I think.</p>

<p>By the way, I NEVER aspired to be a Photo of the Week recipient or even get high ratings. I view this as a 'fun' site and a sharing site, and my low rate average would tend to bear my rating statement out.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Amen, John.</p>

<p>Lex - You've posted the sort of thoughtful remarks that PNers expect. What bears repeating is, "The POTW has been virtually unmoderated for a long time. It took a lot of effort to cultivate a consistently constructive tone of high value comments and lively discussions that weren't merely arguments." Is there any possibility, then, that there will be increased moderation in the future? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is still no direct LR to PN method to load pictures."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dick, there kinda-sorta is, but it's not a one-click process.<br>

<br>

From Lightroom 4 and later (and Picasa) you can email to photo.net. Emailed photos will appear by default in our folders labeled "Photodrop", which are hidden. From there we can move the photos to the desired publicly visible folders.<br>

<br>

I've only experimented a bit with the Lightroom-to-photo.net-Photodrop process. A few tips, quirks, etc.:</p>

<ul>

<li>We need to know the address for our photo.net Photodrop folders. Problem is, I don't remember how to find our Photodrop email address. I have it set up via my Gmail account, but don't recall how it was done. The process isn't very intuitive.</li>

<li>There's definitely an upper file size limit. In my earliest tests the upper dimension limit was 3500 pixels. I'm not sure what the current pixel dimension limit is - it would need to be large for folks who wish to use PN's printing service partner. Unlike the convenient batch uploader, the Photodrop method will not automagically resize our full rez JPEGs to fit. We have to do that in Lightroom.</li>

<li>EXIF data is retained on the photos but not read by photo.net. Curious viewers would need a browser based metadata reader or copy the image URL to an online metadata reader.</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, I have no idea about future plans for the POTW and moderation. I've never really been involved in the POTW process, other than occasionally suggesting candidate photos for the POTW. I would imagine the entire process would be very time consuming and a juggling act, between reviewing candidate photos and actively moderating the process.</p>

<p>The trickiest bit would be maintaining the traditional distinction between the "elves" who select POTW photos, and a prospective moderator who tries to encourage lively discussions while keeping it civil and on topic. There have often been complaints about the selection process, and the tone and content of any introductory comment from the elves for the POTW. Inevitably someone would decide that the POTW moderator must also be the "elves" and would begin to direct personal complaints by name toward the moderator, assuming the "elves" was merely a disguise for one person who directs the entire show. A false assumption but it's inevitable. In fact, I've never been sure which member(s) actually choose the POTW photos. I only know the names of a few people who actually handle the administrative chores for posting the photos, which doesn't mean they're also the folks who actually select the photos.</p>

<p>Ideally we would have tools built into PN's platform to foster the POTW system. A number of members could be privately designated as "elves". Each would have access to the tools to nominate candidate photos, which other elves could thumbs up/down to determine consensus on advancing to the final round. An automated calendar could help with scheduling and to notify elves "Hey, you're up next, be sure to choose the final selection for this week's POTW and confirm it by midnight, such and such date." Or perhaps the entire process could be more fully automated to automagically launch a month's worth of POTWs, so that the elves would only need to meet and discuss candidates once a month.</p>

<p>Anyway, that's my personal wish list. More up to date tools for collaborating with fellow members on weekly POTW, the weekly classic photo discussion threads, that sort of thing. That's another reason I'm a fan of Facebook, which does provide these tools, as well as live chats. Makes it easier to schedule and coordinate stuff with local arts groups.</p>

<p>BTW, a couple of folks mentioned the tone of the Philosophy forum. I'll admit it took awhile for me to adapt as well. But that's not the fault of the forum or its participants. It isn't like the casual photo conversations forum, or other forums, nor should it be. It really is for in-depth discussions, opinions and often meandering musings on the nature of photography and related issues. It doesn't lend itself to drive-by postings of the type that say something like "Well, I didn't have time to read every post here, but..."</p>

<p>By its very nature it's time consuming. That factor alone will limit participation to those who actually have the time to follow the entire conversation in context and reply in that context. I don't always have the time or inclination. That's probably true of all the regular participants. That's one reason those threads tend to go on for weeks, with only occasional updates. I tend to spend a lot more time reading the threads and looking at the referenced materials - photos and linked articles - than I do posting my own thoughts.</p>

<p>The Philosophy forum isn't inherently cliquish or exclusive as a consequence of the participants. It's exclusive because it's intrinsically part of the process, one which effectively demands that all participants do so within the context of the entire conversation. That's just the nature of the thing.</p>

<p>Lex - Assuming that the term "elves" actually refers to a group of persons who collectively pick an image for POTW, couldn't they rotate the moderator role so that the same person isn't burdened with the task in perpetuity? By the way, I really like your idea about automating the process. </p>

<p>I'm not sure about a rotating moderator for that particular project. Moderation seems to work best on a flexible, unscheduled <em>ad hoc</em> basis, with a number of people available to pitch in as issues arise and as mods are available. It's a reasonable tradeoff between consistency in particulars and continuity overall.</p>

<p>I don't think that dropping the potw from the front page is entirely responsible for the low participation. I've not been allowed to participate for ages and I still regularly read the weekly comments and had no trouble finding the forum. What eventually made me stop looking in on the potw was the trend toward postcard type images of which little could be said. The discussions become boring and took place between fewer and fewer members. At this point it just isn't worth the bother. I understand that the site wants to avoid contention at any cost but the great thing about the old potw forum was that the images chosen pushed a lot of buttons and got lively discussion going.</p>

 

<p>Gordon, I agree that the POTW's absence from the front page isn't singlehandedly responsible for the poor level of participation. It still is, though, a contributing factor. </p>

<p>Your point about button pushing is well taken. Photos considered for POTW shouldn't always because they're pretty. </p>

<p>I'm just casually reading this, so I may be drawing the wrong conclusion, but what I take away from it is that the site is more heavily moderated than it used to be and that at the same time, participation is dropping.</p>

<p>Could the two be related?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...but what I take away from it is that the site is more heavily moderated than it used to be and that at the same time, participation is dropping.<br>

Could the two be related?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, and no.</p>

<p>The site is more lightly moderated now than I've ever seen it. The chores mostly consist of spammer-stomping.</p>

<p>That's mostly a good thing. It removes one of the imaginary hindrances.</p>

<p>If the site was as closely moderated as it was in ye olden dayes of yore, both this thread and the oh-look-it's-yet-another-thread-whining-about-the-OT-forum would have been locked or deleted outright. After all, we had to make room for the incessant complaints about ratings.</p>

<p>Reasons for photo.net's decline in activity are complex, but one obvious reason is our own failure to adapt as a community and create a welcoming environment.</p>

<p>My impression, from observing and lurking on dozens of different photography related sites, is that most photographers, fans of photography, and prospective new members want to be inspired, encouraged and informed with tips they can actually put to use. Almost daily I read articles and comments on sites like PetaPixel, 121clicks (okay, occasionally I call them 121cliches, but they're amenable to constructive input from readers), Bored Panda, Magnum, Burn Magazine, NYT Lens blog, and many others. There are good reasons for the popularity of those sites and their social media adjuncts.</p>

<p>Now, I can't speak for, oh, say, my 20-something cousin who grew up watching me take family photos and who now has a baby daughter she wants to take good photos of with her very good smartphone. But if I was to speak for, oh, say, my 20-something cousin who grew up watching me take family photos and who now has a baby daughter she wants to take good photos of with her very good smartphone, I would say RUN AWAY! from any site like photo.net. Because here she will receive mostly elitist gear wonks dismissing anything that isn't a dSLR, chatter about equipment she doesn't have rather than practical tips for getting the best results with what she does have, and rubber stamp "critiques" that range from "Bellisimo!" to "Tourist snapshot" for every photo ranging from nudes to landscapes to abstracts to complete digital fabrications. And if she explored the site's forums she'd find sorta-veteran members whining about how photo.net ain't as good as it was in ye olden dayes, when the *real* veteran members whined about how <a href="/photo/8815865">photo.net was never good</a>.</p>

<p>Lex. I take your comments about the philosophy forum. It's contributors are intelligent and I have no objection to it being on PN. However, I am 82 and I don't think I may live long enough to be accepted. I say this tongue in cheek but observe that although it is good for members that participate there are literally thousands of PN members who don't participate in philosophy or for that matter don't participate at all. The active membership consequently devolves to the most vocal. I suspect our demographic continues to age and the comments we read reflect that. I now use the cloud and Google where I have little trouble storing or using my pictures on my smart phone. I would really like to do this on PN but that really isn't practical. Why do I want to do it here? It's because there is a fairly large and astute membership to communicate with. I see that Sony has come out with a 1.5 crop sensor combination camera and lens for smart phones. That is for the younger demographic. We don't cover things like that. The world outside of the US and particularly Japan have taken to mirrorless where I have dabbled for about three years. I think PN needs to get more into the News business about a still rapidly evolving technology that has broadened well beyond DSLRs. I own both mirrorless and DSLRs and am interested in both. I think, and I may be wrong, but we sit back and let reader contribution rates determine our destiny. These rates are obviously declining. I think that PN needs to broaden it's services to members perhaps through affiliations with people like Topaz, lens manufacturers, suppliers of services like ink cartridges etc. I am sure some of them would supply news releases, product descriptions etc. I think we have devolved into our own little world while others have expanded. I like it here. I keep coming back but I also have a management background that tells me not sit on the past but to move ahead with rapidly changing demographics. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>All good suggestions, Dick. I think to some extent one reason for the popularity of sites like PetaPixel, 121clicks, and DIY or "life hack" sites is that people want access to useful tips. They aren't necessarily interested in long discussions or having to wade through dozens of posts to find good info. With a well curated site the editors or readers can elevate the most useful and interesting comments/replies to the top of the heap.</p>

<p>Photo.net has a core base of very experienced professional and serious amateur photographers. It might be interesting to revamp the old discussion forum model to emphasize useful tips and techniques from experienced photographers, and to bump the best comments to the top.</p>

<p>There's still plenty of room for open ended discussions and I do enjoy the philosophy and casual photo conversations forums for those. But, yes, the nature of such conversations does tend to being dominated by the most verbose - which is me at times. If I'm recalling correctly it was Mark Twain who apologized for writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a short one. Years ago the late great Art Haykin referred to our writing styles as Hemingway and Proust - his being rather terse, mine being rambling and introspective, going off on perpendicular tangents; which led to my career as an undercompensated professional perpendicularity consultant, a job for which I am overqualified and the which the world has absolutely no need.</p>

<p>Lex<br>

Regarding your statement below: how can we find out how to find our Photodrop folders?<br>

<em>From Lightroom 4 and later (and Picasa) you can email to photo.net. Emailed photos will appear by default in our folders labeled "Photodrop", which are hidden. From there we can move the photos to the desired publicly visible folders.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>The Photodrop folder is automagically created when we email photos to our photo.net Photodrop. After that it's easy to find via our workspace pages. The tricky bit is figuring out the email address for our individual Photodrop folders. I can't remember now how I figured it out to begin with. It isn't readily apparent on our workspace page.</p>

<p>Perhaps the perspective of a fairly new member (< 1 yr.) in regards to perceived membership and participation decline in Photo.net <br>

I agree with some of Lex's comments, for I joined to learn and gather inspiration from the experience of others but have noted that many submitted photos, that I admired, are lacking the basic camera settings and/or the lighting aspects . To those that do add this info - thank you for it sometimes provides a "ahaah moment"- something to experiment with and encourages newbies to get out of the "green box". Is this not part of "<strong>A site for photographers by photographers"</strong>?<br>

Presently, photos submitted to forums such as Nature Mondays and Canon Thursdays(my interests) are required to be downsized to 700px on the long side. Doing so,I find image quality deteriorated such, I rarely attempt it.Photos reduced to 1000px for e-mail and 1500px for "My Workspace", I find the IQ to be acceptable - perhaps participation in similar forums might increase with larger file size maximums. <br>

As for the POTW, here, I find more realistic and helpful critiques (as well as more background info) than the frequent "good ol boy stroking" in the Critique Forum. Overall, I have found Photo.net to be helpful and contains enough helpful tutorials, forums and discussions by some members to keep me coming back. <br>

Bob</p>

<p>Bob: Indeed, the EXIF data can be helpful in evaluating a photograph. Sad to say, at least in my case, the data for whatever reason doesn't accompany most of my images when I upload them to my workspace. To add insult to injury, I guess an excess of sloth leads to my not providing the data manually.</p>