POW moderation and purpose

A whole heap of comments have been deleted from this weeks photo of the week

discussion because the moderators deemed them off topic. Some were just

bickering and others pertained to extremely academic discussions of what the

definition of surreal is - I can understand why that discussion might be better

held in the philosophy forum. However, many comments in essence addressing the

question "why present this image in this way" have also been deleted. There

is more to photography than light, filters, film or CCD choice, the rule of

thirds etc. A point I thought Jock Sturges made very clear in a critique here -

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4404659

 

I would have thought the purpose of the POW was to try and take our critiques

and understanding to a higher level. Surely "why did someone create this

image?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask in a serious photographic

forum? It also seems to me that sharing our ideas would be the most educational

possible outcome for a forum intended as an archived learning tool. So if we

can't engage in a normal thoughtful critical analysis then why bother analysing

at all? Comments?

I don't know about it, but I know that my question as to the why behind the current

image--

why it was modified as it was--was cut. In an image like the current POW, or any art for

that matter, the thinking behind the image is as much a part of the critical analysis as any

other

element. We may infer our thoughts as to the why, we may hear or read the

photographer's stated

reason and we may still have our own idea in light of the photographer's state reason. The

point is that this is not an unrelated issue to valid analysis and I find it incredible that my

comment was

deemed out of line. I am befuddled as to the reason this photo was altered, as well as

many

of the photographer's other images on his web site. I only asked the question in hopes

that

someone could come forward and off something I couldn't see and help me understand.

 

I don't generally totally disagree when a comment is cut, mine or another's, but in this

case I feel that this was an overreaction or misunderstanding of the value of such a

question--whether answered by the author or others who might feel they have an insight.

Although I haven't commented on this week's image myself, I noticed the same deletions and, like Richard, found them unjustified. Yes, off-topic comments should be removed, but in my view the moderating in the POW forum continues to be too heavy-handed.

 

In one deleted comment, for instance, Mona asked roughly "What is the aesthetic purpose of the digital manipulation of this image?" That is not off topic.

 

The point wasn't to criticize the elves' choice, nor to make sweeping generalizations about digital manipulation. It was just to ask what the theme or aim of this particular picture is and how that theme or aim was or was not furthered by the techniques the photographer used.

 

This is no different from asking, for instance, why a traditional darkroom print was dodged or burned in a particular way. It is precisely the sort of question on which the POW discussion should focus.

 

This has me wondering whether the moderator of the POW forum actually reads the comments before deleting them, or simply scans them for flagged keywords and hits the "delete" button as soon as one pops up.

 

Complaints about the moderating have come up repeatedly, and frankly I don't think this is a trivial issue. Not when the same problems crop up again and again.

 

The point of the POW forum is to promote in-depth discussion of photographic aesthetics and technique.

 

How can we have a discussion of any depth if fundametnal questions such as "What is the purpose of this image?" can be arbitrarily deleted at any time? How can we follow or build a discussion?

 

Worst of all, some of the potentially most insightful contributors may eventually give up in disgust, thus relinquishing the floor to the "Wow, 7/7!" crowd.

 

Again, to be precise: No one is arguing for an unmoderated forum. The point is that the moderators' excessive interference, based on questionable judgments about what is or is not off-topic, is preventing the forum from achieving its stated aim of promoting in-depth discussion of photography.

(Mona posted while I was typing my comment, and so I didn't see hers.)

Richard,

 

I share your thoughts 200%. I really wonder why POW moderators do bother to warn people and delete all kinds of comments that do not fit thes "rules", which I happen to think are silly rules.

 

In France, if you were to exert so much control over what people have to say in an art forum, you'd just end up running an empty web site.

 

As long as what people say is somehow connected to the picture and as long as they are not rude, why exactly would you bother to delete people's thoughts...? Is that the american way to understand "freedom of speech"...?

Or as Chris fraser puts it:

 

"No one is arguing for an unmoderated forum. The point is that the moderators' excessive interference, based on questionable judgments about what is or is not off-topic, is preventing the forum from achieving its stated aim of promoting in-depth discussion of photography."

It seems that the moderators believe that the content of the criticism of the POW should be limited to execution of mechanics - lighting, framing, basic adjustments.

 

Although useful, that's a photography 101 view of criticism. The "why" of a shot is much more interesting - or should be. The reason for distorting the aspect ratio is clearly the most important question that should be discussed on this image. If the site doesn't like the inevitable stupid comments about what is and isn't a photograph, then they should remove all nominated photographs that have been heavily manipulated. You can't have a discussion that ignores the obvious.

Here is my response to Mona regarding her deleted comment...

 

"Hi Mona - You really made your point quite well in your two posts... and therefore was a bit repetitive.

 

Your deleted comment was about manipulation in his "other" images along with this one and you basically repeated your critique with the addition of "why"...

 

I do think a valid question/comment might be - to ask the "photographer" (vs other pn members) about "why" he chose to treat this image in this way... and leave it at that..."

 

Ok... So one of the problems on the POW page is often that there is a

tendency to go off track and Mona's comment brought about a few more deeply philosophical comments that went way off track. Some people tend to state and re-state the same point in different ways and it seems to attract a small group into an endless discussion with no clear answer and gets repetative.

 

Mona's question ended with ...can anyone tell me why? We can only guess (and then people try but we get way off into never never land here for some reason) - but we can ask the photographer - right? So - bottom line is Mona can re-post with a question to the photographer - about this POW image.

It seems to me, as the one most deleted from this weeks POW, that every week we return to the same basic problems as to format on the POW. Each week we have 2 discussions always conflicting each other. One oriented toward aesthetic appreciation and interpretation ( having philosophical reference), and one having to do with technique, related to how the Artist did it or why they did it. Perhaps 2 separate discussions would serve the goal of understanding better. Deletes are censorship ,unless for abusive reasons. There was no abuse on this weeks thread. I hope that management will listen to the voices of concern this time.

Just for clarification - abuse is not the only reason for moderation on the POW which is a different animal than other forums due to its high profile on PN.

<p>

Here are the guidelines......

<p><em>

"Discussions and lively debates are healthy and encouraged. But, Remember that there is no one voice in the photo.net membership that has "the" answer.

<p>

Personal attacks or comments are not constructive or helpful and generally elicit a response in-kind, which degrades the discussion. Such comments will be deleted. Try to remember that there are students here as well as talented professionals. Just because you are more "educated" does not mean you can't learn from someone who is new to the field.

<p>

No short congratulatory comments and no short disparaging comments.

"Good work." "Nice photo." "Congratulations on POW." Comments such as these are nice for the photographer to hear but we recommend sending an e-mail to the recipient. Negative short comments with no details will also be deleted. For example: "This photo stinks." "I don't think this is deserving of POW." "I find this photo boring.

<p>

Try not to write a novel with your comments and responses.

<p>

Very often there are wordy and frequent comments by the same people which basically say the same thing in various ways that belabor a point and are overly verbose. Try to keep your comments concise. These posts may be edited and/or an e-mail will be sent to request that further comments be more concise and to the point.

<p>

Try not to get caught up in "winning" the debate. We are here to share and learn from each other!"</em>

<p>

Unfortunately the guidelines are a bit hidden and I think people forget what the guidelines actually say.... Some may also not know or may have forgotten when the POW was a mess and the initial response of the owner of the site was to delete anything that was the slightest bit off topic and anything that was at all repetative! Can't say I blamed him at the time - he was really pissed... People were flaming each other and others were threatening to quit and some other people were getting banned left and right.

<p>

Soooo....Why did it happen? The POW forum was used by many as a way to get exposure and attention. Negative attention or positive - didn't matter. It became a soapbox...a chat room...an attack forum - you name it. Not our fault - it is the nature of the beast.

<p>

Sooo...The POW forum is more tightly moderated. At least it is not as tightly moderated as it was. You think its bad now... ;-) A decision was made to allow Photoshop discussions as well - as long as it related to the image presented as POW. Used to be NO discussion of manipulation/photoshop was allowed because it always headed to gutter.

<p>

Anyway - the guidelines are there. You can choose to follow them or you can choose to get deep into phsycological analysis in the philosophy forum or you can get down and dirty in the Lecia forum. You can post 10+ times in any other thread and you can repeat yourself until you win the argument or make your point in 15 different ways in any other forum. Just not the POW forum.

I don't normally care about deletions, even if I disagree, but this one bothers me. Since

Mary posted her response to me, here is my response to her.

 

"I don't agree that the posts were the same. Yes, I repeated some things for clarification.

The question why is one we should all ask ourselves and it really doesn't matter, in the

final analysis, what the creator's reason is, although it would be informative, but it is the

why we come up with for ourselves that makes an image come together for us. So my

asking the question, generally, was really a call to what others were seeing that made

them feel it was a wonderful photo. Think of it like religion, if we all thought the same,

there would just be one religion, but since we all think differently, we look around until we

find one that fits our needs or that makes sense to us.

 

I just feel like you may not be getting where I was going and I certainly still do not feel that

they were redundant posts or that the deletion was justified. "

 

I just think this was heavy handed and the result of Mary's misunderstanding of the

principle I was getting at. If we can't explore "why" an image has been created then what

really is there left to talk about--short congratulatory statements?

Mary, I went back and reread Mona's three previous posts this week, and, well, I'm sorry, but your grounds for deletion strike me as simply false. The deleted post that sparked this feedback thread did not repeat points Mona had previously made. It was a development in an ongoing discussion.

 

Mona believes that we better understand any single piece of a photographer's work when we see it in the context of a body of that person's work. The deleted post reported that she had examined the folder of work from which this week's selection came and still couldn't see the point of the photographer's "surreal" approach. The post then raised the legitimate question of the aesthetic purpose of the digital manipulations in this week's image.

 

Both points were new, not repetitions. And in any case, I doubt that a limited degree of repetition hurts the forum. Again, as in the Loeliger case, why not err on the side of tolerance?

 

You object to the phrasing of Mona's closing question. But what's wrong with it? The author of the POW is not part of the discussion, at least so far, so Mona put a question to the floor. Isn't that how an open forum is supposed to work? Perhaps someone might have responded with an interesting answer. And in any case, the question was at least partly rhetorical, implying that Mona couldn't see any good reason why the photographer took this approach. Surely the fact that she wrote "Can anyone tell me why...?" instead of "I don't see why..." does not constitute grounds for deletion.

 

Look at how your heavy-handed approach is multiplying the informal rules of the forum. Now it's not simply "No off-topic discussion," but also "No repetition, not even partial," "No questions posed to the floor," "No comments that are likely to incite off-topic discussion by OTHER people, even if the original comments are on-topic," "No endless discussions, no matter how profound or complex the issue," and "No discussions between small groups of regulars, no matter how interested they are or how interesting their comments might be."

 

And what counts or doesn't count as violating these rules seems entirely capricious and ad hoc.

 

I agree that something like this week's tangential discussion of the definition of "surreal" is off topic and should be cut short (NOT deleted, but cut short by a moderator's warning). Personal abuse should also be deleted, obviously. But other than than, why adopt anything other than a hands-off approach? Readers of the forum who feel Mona's or anyone else's posts are repetitious, uninteresting, or beside the point can just skip them!

 

None of the justifications you've given for your aggressive policing either this time or in the Loeliger case are persuasive. And that's what it amounts to: Not "moderating," but ad hoc policing and censoring. Again I urge a hands-off approach allowing the free exchange of ideas between whoever wishes to contribute to the forum.

It would probably make life easier for the moderator(s) if the POW wasn't a discussion forum but a place where people could leave their comments on the "Picture of the Week". You would get one bite at the Apple, one post, no followups. You could give your views on the image, why it was good, why it was bad etc. Just a statement.

 

You would have to hide ALL the comments until the end of the week of course, then shut down the thread. Otherwise people would attack previous views and the people posting the earlier comments would explode because they could not retaliate.

 

So at the end of the week you'd have a set of (thoughtful?) comments on the image with no arguments, name calling, drifting off topic, threats to leave and complaints about moderation. It would be all about the image - but where's the fun in that. Unless someone gets eviscerated it's all just so boring.

Mary, the post you put up while I was typing my previous comment only muddies the waters. Just as in the Loeliger case, you are responding to specific criticisms of your actions as moderator by citing irrelevant facts about the history of the POW forum.

 

So what if the forum used to be totally undisciplined and full of personal abuse? How is that relevant to Richard's point? The shared premise of this thread is that some level of moderation is needed, to prevent abuse and unequivocably off-topic discussion. But you are deleting a lot of stuff that is not abusive and arguably is on-topic or close enough.

 

When people point this out, you give a series of ever-changing, often false excuses, and then tell us we should accept your decisions because a long time ago the forum was very nasty. Please stop insulting our intelligence with these red herring comments and instead genuinely engage with the points we are making.

Bob, I understood this to be al learning forum, if there is no discussion and exchange of

ideas, pro or con, then what do you learn, how you think? I hope we all know how we think

before we write.

I don't know what went on before, all I know is what's happening now. I truely believe that the various people who come back each week , looking forward to discussing the POW in a meaningful way, are all very intelligent and thoughtful folks. I don't always agree with everyone but I do respect the different ways of thinking and different approaches to the given image. You are so fortunate to have such a varied, gifted pool of thinking participants who really are quite civilized to eachother most of the time. 'Off topic' is just a phrase that is understood differently by each of us. This group , participating in the POW now, should be left alone to explore all the different roads leading to a better understanding of the image. When it is all said and done, the POW is really just a good think, don't you... think?

I was deleted a week ago for making a vague reference to the type of photo it was and that I preferred it to the types of pictures that were usually on the POW.

 

I had an interesting discussion via email with Mary Ball subsequent to that. She suggested that I make a thread in this forum eliciting my concerns, and I will soon.

 

I thought at the time that the "elves" would have deleted comments like mine because they didn't want their aesthetic preferences challenged. But reading this thread, I see it's worse than that.

 

The only comments that should be deleted are personal remarks. In order to be alive and productive-given the variety amongst our members in sophistication, experience, backgounds--a discussion should be allowed to run off course now and then. People should be allowed to make mistakes. Even "Wow", "Awesome", or "Terrible" should be allowed because that's all some members are capable of at this stage in their development.

 

The moderators who run the POW are showing themselves to have a very limited worldview, not only aesthetically, but also intellectually.

 

People should be allowed to make mistakes.

Would it be such a bad thing for Mary to consider the possibility that she might be little heavy-handed in her moderation? Everyone makes mistakes; we are human. I think those who have contributed to this particular thread and the one below (26th) are very considerate and intelligent regular contributors trying to make some very reasonable points that the administration seems adamantly defended against. Bob Atkins responds in a rather cynical way insensitive to the contributors; no help in my opinion. You must have noticed how your "moderation", regardless of how you characterize it, has pretty much killed all further discussion. Doesn't the power to censor the contributors demand that you be impeccable in using that power?

Bob - to be honest the point at which someone starts getting eviscerated is usually the point at which I lose interest and stop reading the POW. I appreciated the moderator's efforts this week to remove some tit-for-tat stuff like that. What I enjoy most about the POW is that it often motivates people who are far more knowledgable than me to congregate in one place and share their insights into technique, historical context, interpretation etc. I wish more of them would do it. I think it would be a shame to shut down the discussion side of it for the convenience of the moderators. In some ways it seems like there are conflicting desires for what the POW should actually be. I know from emails Mary has sent me that some people, perhaps yourself included, find the types of to and fro that I enjoy reading irritating. I guess that was why I thought a discussion of what it is for might be helpful.

It is not easy to please everyone... I have no personal stake in the POW discussions but I do know the problems that can crop up and how things can get off track.

<p>

Just for fun - Have a read here:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=365049

<p>

It is amazing how an innocent comment here or there can strike up a nasty conversation or some people seem to draw attacks when they state and restate their opinions like they are facts. Some comments are short novels and they wonder why they get attacked. Sometimes you guys don't know you got attacked because I got there soon enough. My job then becomes cleaning up the attacks and occassionally banning people.

<p>

I'm not on here 24/7 and sometimes when things look like they are going south - I make a decision. I never said I was perfect and I've said that a few times here on the Feedback forum.

<p>

On the other side I get complaints and emails like: "Dear Mary, The POW forum is going off the rails. Increasingly now, we have a handful of people who feel this is the forum for philosophical discussion of their idea of art, the universe and everything else..."

<p>

OR "Dear Mary, I should be able to say whatever I want to say on the POW - this is a free country and you are not free to censor my words."

<p>

What's a moderator to do? I already told Mona to go ahead and re-state her deleted comment but rather than re-state her dislike of the manipulation - or ask "why" as a loaded question -- genuinely ask people who liked the manipulation - why they feel it was a good choice on this image.

<p>

As volunteer moderators, we have to deal with complaints all the time. Too much moderation, not enough moderation... This one said that to me and it's rude...I'm sorry I snapped at that person but they insulted me...could you please delete/edit my comment or someone else's comment and 10-15 emails with some members explaining why they can't complain about the choice of the POW on the POW forum because this is a free country etc. etc..

<p>

Anyway - the guidelines are there... No rudeness (which also means when I see a comment that is overly arrogant and will generate nastiness - I will edit out the inflammatory part)... No novels (which you may notice I usually don't enforce)... No repetative comments stating and restating a point to win an argument because it is a critique forum - not a pissing contest. No complaining about the choice or the policy of PN or the elves. Going slightly off topic is ok as long as it relates to <em>the current POW.</em>

 

Cheers..

PS - Mike Spinak who wrote a comment that went too broadly into manipulation in general after Patrick's warning... has reworded his critique to be more specific to this POW image.

 

It is now posted.

 

As I often do - I'll sit back and wait to see if this post draws flames. It is a little harsh - considering no one "volunteers" to be ripped apart in the POW forum. Personally I think it is unnecessary to call the photographer dishonest in public. I would like to see a little more "constructive" comments towards the photographer. Mike's post is a good example of a post I would like to "soften". Let's see what happens though... I'll actaually be pleased if Mike's comments don't get attacked. We'll see.

OK, I feel like I have already said far too much about this weeks POW...but..LOL, Mary I agree it seemed a tad harsh. Your post gives me the idea that we need a parallel forum called moderator's musings or something along those lines. It could run in the blank space to the right of the main forum and serve as a reminder to remain civil, vaguely on topic and to not get too agitated about other peoples postings.

I find Mike's critique insightful and generally agree with it. But it most certainly could be softened. Let me suggest one reminder that could be added to the rules that might prompt Mike and others to temper their remarks: "Write as if you are contributing to a friendly conversation that includes the photographer himself." The point being that a critique with exactly the same substance could be expressed using less loaded or provocative language -- as we naturally would do if speaking to the photographer face-to-face.

I don't think i will repost--no energy left for it. I do think, however, that there has been a

lot of growth in the POW comments the last year or so. In fact, except for a few

digressions, most seem to respect each other.

 

A few debates are fine I would think, it gets to the meat of an issue. If I don't see any

value in a comment or debate, or a certain person's comments, I don't read them and I

think that is what anyone who complains about a few who "monopolize" the thread should

be told--dont read those peoples comments. Very few ideas or real value come from

singular comments it seems to me, most of the meat comes when someone's view is

challenged and clarification can be had through the interchange(respectfully done). If I

don't agree with Marc or Carl or anyone else, so be it. I think being able to state that is

catalyst to both discussion of an item and to personal growth on both parts. Even tho I

think some of the people in this thread have attacked each other in the past, that is in the

past and there is seemingly a great deal of respect for each other because each presents

thoughtful analysis and comments.

 

Sometimes repeating something is not for proving "I am right", but to add clarity to a point

that was trying to be made by restating in maybe a more clear way or for laying the

foundation for the next point--what I was doing. I have found that too many people on

the POW, and I don't mean the people posting here, never read what has transpired before

the last comment someone makes-they don't take the time to go back and see if the

person making the comment has said something else that will clarify the current comment

or idea. Then these people launch some totally irrelevant attack or challenge to what has

been said. So repeating salient points that support or clarify the current idea or thought

seems a necessity unless you want to write defensive monologues later, which I see all the

time.(especially if your last comment is a foot and a half up the page.)

~ It is amazing how an innocent comment here or there can strike up a nasty conversation ~

 

We understand. So... it would be enough to delete the attacks, but not the original comment, right? Or modify the wording a bit?

 

~we have a handful of people who feel this is the forum for philosophical discussion of their idea of art, the universe and everything else..." ~

 

I think you can safely ignore comments like that one, which is simply false. I haven't seen any philosophical discussions of the universe, meaning of life, etc. Philosophical discussions of art that are closely pinned to the image in question should be welcome, of course. Mike Spinak's critique that we just mentioned. is a good example of general principles linked to an opinion about the specific picture.

 

~ "I should be able to say whatever I want to say...' ~

 

Well, that's true, if it's polite, concise, and germaine to the image under discussion.

 

~ short novels ~

 

Good point. Maybe institute a 250 word limit.

 

~ I already told Mona to go ahead and re-state her

deleted comment ~

 

But the point is: Why delete it in the first place?

 

~ we have to deal with complaints all the time ~

 

Sure. But let's not lump all the cases together. Some of the complaints are unreasonable or deal with posts that clearly violate the rules. They can be ignored. Others, such as the one at the top of this thread, are reasonable and should be addressed.

 

Posts that make any sort of substantive contribution to the discussion, as both Mona's and Mike's do, should be retained if at all possible.