Promoting Photo.net

<p>I have taken recently to posting a photo to Facebook, then linking almost immediately in the "Comment" section to the same shot as presented on Photo.net. Here is an example:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18277584&size=lg">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>It allows me to get more people to see my photos "out there," but then it invites people to come here to see them larger. (I typically post the large version, so that people can see what Photo.net can do that Facebook cannot.)</p>

<p>While they are here, they might also notice that we have a continuing thriving intellectual exchange about techniques and content of actual photos--a real photo community, something that Facebook cannot quite ever be. (The same may be said of Flickr.com.)</p>

<p>So, I invite others to try the same strategy--whether on Facebook, Flickr, or anywhere else. It promotes Photo.net in a constructive and helpful way to people who might not know that this site exists, and it's no skin off our noses, either. It takes about ten seconds to link to here from another site, where doing so is allowed.</p>

<p>We all want this site to succeed, so why not double-post (or triple-post!) and get more people to come here? It's a win-win situation for all the sites involved.</p>

<p>We have something special here. Let's let the world know about it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but then it invites people to come here to see them larger.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you see an increase in the views of the images so linked? On your facebook posts, there is no indication that the photo.net image is any larger than the one posted on facebook (which when clicked upon opens "large" anyway).</p>

<p>This sort of thing should have been announced as a member incentive with reduced subscription fee offers ten years ago. There are so many bigger and better designed sites out there now and with the shrinking membership here, what guarantee is there that new users would stay? Plus, those who are meant to look after people are still on their high horses pushing personal agenda so I can't see there being any significant change of the site surviving beyond five more years. That is a shame as it used to the most informative group of people and mods aside all well nice.</p>

<p>Good initiative Lannie.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys.</p>

<p>Dieter, perhaps I need a better lead-in, such as "For a larger version with discussion, click below, etc."--or something like that. I am open to suggestions.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>That might help Lannie - but as I already mentioned, by clicking on the image on facebook, it opens large - so what's the incentive to click on another link to see it at the same size again?<br>

In addition - IF anyone clicks on the photo.net link, they will quite likely not explore any further but return to facebook after viewing the image from the link (and possibly the discussion).<br>

It appears to me that many people on flickr view and "fave" the image right from the overview pages which display images in a similar size to those on facebook; they hardly bother to click on one to open the larger view.</p>

<p>I have been doing what Lannie is doing for several years now. It use to be easier when the photonet/facebook app did it for me! My friends would all click the link, bringing them to PN to view the photo. None, zero, zip, nada, ever made a comment about the photo "on PN". They did however comment about it on FB.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but as I already mentioned, by clicking on the image on facebook, it opens large - so what's the incentive to click on another link to see it at the same size again?</p>

<p>Dieter, I'm confused by the above statement. No matter what size photo I upload to my Timeline on FB, clicking on it only yields a "slightly" larger view. It in no way compares to the "large view" on PN. Perhaps I'm not doing something correctly.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter, I'm confused by the above statement. No matter what size photo I upload to my Timeline on FB, clicking on it only yields a "slightly" larger view.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have little experience with images and their sizes on facebook - I went to Lannie's facebook account, clicked on some of his images and what opened in facebook was the same size as what their largest version is on photo.net. Maybe it all depends on how large one uploads on photo.net and facebook? Lannie's images seems to be 1500 pixels wide - and display the same size on facebook and photo.net. I can't comment on what's available or possible on facebook, I have no interest in uploading any of my images there.<br /> <br />I searched for your account on facebook, and clicked on the cat image - it opens at 1500x1000 wide. None of your others do, they seem to be uploaded in a smaller size only.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You may be right, Dieter, but at least the name "Photo.net" gets some exposure--and that does have an effect. "Name recognition" is why we have advertising. Is Photo.net perfect? No, but we want it to be, and, if we don't promote it, who will?</p>

<p>Users of a site offer the best testimonials. I say, write or say "Photo.net" as often as possible--until people can't help but remember it--and go to it once in a while. Keep the name out there. <strong><em>LINK to it!</em></strong> People have a compulsion to follow links, so give them links.</p>

<p>Above all, keep the best of the Photo.net tradition alive.</p>

<p>We know what we have here. Let's let the world know.</p>

<p>Again, I am open to other suggestion as to what WE can do as members/contributors to keep the name alive in the public consciousness. There are millions who would use this site if they only knew the fullness of what is available here. There simply is no other site quite like it. <strong><em>I don't care who gets the credit. I don't care who gets the profit.</em></strong> I just want this site to survive--and flourish--for all the present and potential users out there.</p>

<p>Maybe NameMedia can also advertise the name some more. I have no idea. I don't know what its advertising budget is. We do know one thing: "It pays to advertise." We can help, even if we are not stock-holders--because in some essential sense we are, even if we don't get financial dividends.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie's good deeds are surely positive for Photonet and even better if many follow his example. Personally I not using Facebook, but I promote Photonet on other sites mainly related to arts.<br>

However, I believe the most important action is for the Administration to put heavy resources into all the tools of search engine optimization, as many of we would do when it comes to our own sites.</p>

<p>Anders, I have often thought that there must be better ways to promote Photo.net, but the fact is that I simply do not know how it might be done. We are talking marketing here, definitely not my field.</p>

<p>I can yet see that there is a marketing challenge: how does one easily "sell" the first-time visitor to the site the idea that this is a special site? One tends to see that more and more over time, as one comes to appreciate the complexity and usefulness of the site. One cannot tell that from a quick glimpse.</p>

<p>It is for that reason that I have emphasized what we can do by way of promoting name recognition. Name recognition is still a core principle of marketing, I assume. (It sure works with political candidates, especially at the state and local levels.)</p>

<p>So, how does one get the name out there enough? You may be right about search engine optimization. I really do not know. I do think that it must be done. Without more and better name recognition, the site is likely to decline in the face of stiff competition, I fear.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>As I previously have mentioned, some 60% (as far as remember) comes to Photonet on the basis of search engines. Good search engine optimization made by the PN administration's efforts might be behind some of this but surely more can be made.<br>

Recognition by photo communities is essential. Try look at the Design Flot Blog and it's "<a href="http://www.designfloat.com/blog/2011/12/08/top-online-photography-communities/">Top Twelve Photography Communities</a>": Photonet is number three. But look at "<a href="http://www.lightstalking.com/5-incredible-online-communities-to-get-genuine-feedback-on-your-photography/">Five Incredible online communities to get genuine feedback on your photograhies</a>" - Photonet not included. And the same is the case for : <a href="https://www.pixpa.com/blog/online-photography-communities-to-follow/">Best Online photography Communities that can help you big time</a>" - Photonet nowhere to find. Google "Photography communities" - Photonet is far from the top search result.</p>

<p> </p>

A good effort, Lannie. and good luck with the recruitment. I found this out when I looked at recruiting for an organization once and learned that attrition was foiling the numbers all up. In other words, '' the bucket has HOLES in it." Clear as can be. Attrition. Oft discussed reasons many old names have kept membership but do not have much to contribute. I speak for yours truly. I likely will not renew paid membership. But who knows. Aloha. gs ...... FYI, let' s see a marker set on fulfillment of the following :

 

"...we're putting final touches on 2.0 (yes we are almost there) and our time will be spent chasing more value we can bring to the subscription offering and spend less time chasing ad dollars to support our site and its staff." ( Glenn Palm on the marketing model recent statement on unwanted ad spam)

Thanks for starting this discussion, it's pretty much what I suggested in today's thread (Saturday, Sept 4th here in Japan) about the collapse of PN2.0. I had

no idea this thread even existed and this is exactly what we need, a place where people can contribute ideas on how to

broaden our admittedly shrinking base. But it must be a collaborative, communal effort involving both the membership and the moderators and one that is discussed and fully supported my

the majority of the pn community. We need to be informed - whether by e-mail, a special feature on the pn homepage or a one-time

announcement sent to all members when they log in to pn - of the current problems and the need for their input and ideas. It's important to understand that we are in a struggle for our survival as a

community and that we need everyone's ideas on how we can attract new (and younger) members. Specifically, we need

to hear from new members about their experience here, how they feel about the site and how it can be improved. There are

certain matters that deserve priority consideration and the survival and growth of pn is among the most crucial. A free

discussion of ideas is always stimulative and can move things in surprising and rewarding directions. That's about it for now, off the top of my head. Thanks again,

Lannie, for getting the ball rolling (and before the miserable experience of 2,0 at that!)

<p>Jack, I think that we need a collegial, round-table organizational model in order to have a true community. Unfortunately, what we have had for some years is increasingly the top-down command-and-control model--that is, bureaucracy, the very antithesis of community.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

That's my take as well, Lannie. I'm not at all sure that the "front office" realizes this, though. They still seem quite

defensive about their reasoning and their actions.as if to say "well, you don't know what we know."

<blockquote>

<p>as if to say "well, you don't know what we know."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sword cuts both ways, doesn't it? Someone who uses the site on a very regular basis (and who really does know a LOT about photography) and who also knows how to design a website would be ideal.</p>

<p>First two requirements for the site:</p>

<p>(1) ease of access to our galleries, i.e., put them on our main pages--as lists, not as images (which take time to download);</p>

<p>(2) quick and easy display of forums--at the top with drop-down menus is fine and does not require changing anything that I can see.</p>

<p><br />Full-screen images should be an easy option, something one sees on Facebook, Youtube, etc. Why not here?</p>

<p>Neutral background colors are a must. We need an "exhibition view" that shows each photo at its very best imaginable--short of a print hanging on the wall. Allow users to choose the background colors on that view, as if they were choosing the mat for a print.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what else is absolutely necessary, but there were so many "improvements" that were. . . <em>not</em>.</p>

<p><em><strong>This can all be done with the new site appearances, I suspect--if one insists. </strong></em> I don't like the glitz, but some concession to marketing for newbies is apparently a necessity to garner more members--or at least regular visitors.</p>

<p>I really do not know why a new facade could not be put on the old site. The core of the old site (this one!) is a lot more logical than it appears at first. Any big site is going to take some time to learn to navigate, and so dumbing down the site would mean loss of features.</p>

<p>Of course, no changes are going to matter if the authoritarian mindset remains. You don't ban or otherwise punish customers and keep them around. The site can be very uncomfortable. If I wanted discomfort, I would go back to reality, not to a website. Fear is not pleasant. Don't use it as the mortar of your "community." Fear and community are not consistent. A true community is a comfortable place, not a place where one is constantly afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing.</p>

<p>The latter is going to be the hardest to change: how to deal with people who are educated and creative.</p>

<p>If they trot out the World's Best Website and proceed to govern it like a police state, people are going to depart--as fast as possible.</p>

<p>The question is thus not finally about technical skills. It is about people skills. Do the administrators and moderators have a clue in that regard?</p>

<p>If not, I will spew the new version out of my mouth and write off PN as irredeemable--<strong><em>AND I WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.</em></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good luck with the recruitment. I found this out when I looked at recruiting for an organization once and learned that attrition was foiling the numbers all up. In other words, '' the bucket has HOLES in it." Clear as can be. --Gerry Siegel</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Gerry. <em><strong>ATTRITION!</strong></em> That is the bottom line, isn't?</p>

<p>That is, it is not so much about attracting new people: <strong>IT IS ABOUT<em> KEEPING</em> PEOPLE HERE.</strong></p>

<p>That is where the site is failing big time--and we tell them, but they do not listen.</p>

<p>So. . . they keep banning the people they should worry about keeping. <em><strong>SHEESH!</strong></em><br /> <br /> Ban banning and over-moderation and watch the site soar! Keep it up and watch us leave one by one, inexorably, permanently. Too many individuals leaving quietly is a <em>de facto</em> mass exodus.<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I might add that renaming one forum "Cell Phone shots" just to put it nearer the front of the alphabet could help.</p>

<p>I take cell phone shots--a lot of them--but I process them. It is an art form. Lots of people know this.</p>

<p><em><strong>LET VISITORS/PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS KNOW THAT WE KNOW IT.</strong></em></p>

<p>If most shots are made with cell phones, then <strong><em>TAP INTO THAT MARKET!</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Don't bury that feature (a forum for cell phone shots). CELEBRATE IT! PUBLICIZE IT!<br /></em></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Lannie, already the shock of 2.0 has started to wear off and people are falling back to sleep. They don't seem to realize

or care that nothing has changed. PN is still burdened by a shrinking, aging base membership that seems content to drift

softly into irrelevance. Today I googled photo sharing sites and one blog listed the top 20 with reviews. Smugmug was

#1. Flikr was there, 500px, facebook of course and a whole bunch of others I had never heard of. I actually joined

Smugmug today to compare what they had to offer with our site. Believe me Smugmug has nothing to be smug about,

from picture quality to everything else. Interestingly Google pictures was not listed. I'm a member there and it's pretty

good for what it is.though certainly not in our league. Photonet was nowhere to be found! How can this be so? How? We

offer more services than all the rest of them put together, better forums, better critiques and certainly a better caliber of

photographs and photographers IMHO. I'm also a member of Flikr which is great if you want to join their little circles. I

really shouldn't be so dismissive, the model obviously works. It just blows my mind that such a multi-faceted

photography site such as PN should be so roundly ignored. I would certainly like to know what the management thinks

about this situation. As critical as I am of PN - and I can get pretty caustic - in terms of quality, it's still miles ahead of

the competition. I don't get the bit between my teeth very often but it's there now.

It looks like it's just you and me here now, Lannie. Lannie....?.Lannie....?

<p>Jack, I agree with what you said in other places in terms of a lot being up to each of us. I've sworn off the forums for a while for a variety of reasons, but wanted to be sure to respond to you. I did so in another thread that seems to have gone silent.</p>

<p>Jack, I think there's probably a way you and I could start a critique/sharing group where a bunch of us may want to commit to commenting on each other's uploaded photos each week/month and get a back and forth going among us. I'd consider starting a thread inviting people to be part of that unless you'd like to do so. Let me know if you'd be interested in such a group . . . and anyone else who's reading this, of course. Yes, we can still be creative and proactive, which I'm willing to be if it's about discussing the photography—including individual photos, bodies of work, and the goals of each of us—of a group of fellow members.</p>

<p>So good to see your voice again, Fred! I'd been thinking along a similar line, and posted a suggestion to that effect on a different thread ("Ideas for attracting members" in PhotonetSiteHelp). It'd be great to get a discussion going on how to make some kind of a mutual critique group model work. And please count me in among those interested. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jack, I think there's probably a way you and I could start a critique/sharing group where a bunch of us may want to commit to commenting on each other's uploaded photos each week/month and get a back and forth going among us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, as groups go from reading exchanges in the Philosophy Of Photography forums I think that's going to be a very small group.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Today I googled photo sharing sites and <strong>one blog</strong> listed the top 20 with reviews. Smugmug was #1. Flikr was there, 500px, facebook of course and a whole bunch of others I had never heard of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jack, how can you prove that as fact? Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? I think the popularity of the entire internet in general is slowly losing its gloss and will be primarily populated and dominated by media promoters who make the news and then report about it as if it's trending just to grab eyeballs with the rest being small talk social networking enthusiasts.</p>

<p>Lex Jenkins left PN a while back and it was said he spends more time on other sites like Facebook for photography related exchanges. I went to his Facebook page and there hasn't been a posting on his site in some time. Searching his name doesn't bring up anything either. The same is true with Simon Jenkins. My point is I think we're not getting the whole story and we never will when relying on word of mouth claims read on the internet.</p>

<p>Tim wrote: "I think the popularity of the entire internet in general is slowly losing its gloss ... "</p>

<p>Bingo.</p>

<p>That's my impression too, of Facebook, blogs, and forums across the board. People have discovered that, after taking the time (something they have less and less of) to write down their thoughts, in response being showered with rotten tomatoes, is not something they want to keep on doing -- like rats that get shocked for trying some temptation.</p>

<p>I, on the other hand, like tomatoes.</p>