Three things I'd change about PNET:

<p>1) Consolidate / reduce the number of forums. PNET has over 40 while a site like Fred Miranda has 25. Too many forums serves only to dilute the relevance and activity of more specialized groups. For example, the current Olympus and Four-Thirds could be integrated into the Mirrorless Digital Camera Group. 40 groups and not one of them is called, <em>Landscape</em>?</p>

<p>2) No Words is one of the very best things about PNET. Make it even better by making the themes more visible, perhaps by showing a thumbnail of the first image of a given thread. I might even go so far as to integrate No Words into PNET's landing page. There's nothing like it anywhere else on the web that I've seen. Make sure first-time visitors to PNET see how cool it is.</p>

<p>3) Create an "<strong><em>Ignore User</em></strong>" feature. There are a very few voices here I simply do not enjoy and would treasure the ability to ignore. In fact, all PNET has to do is give me that and I'll start paying for my membership again today.</p>

<p>Unless you think PNET is perfect just the way it is, what three things would you change?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd like the ignore button right now.</p>

<p>This is really helpful as we are soon to make some changes. Thanks, Paul! I'll keep this forum thread bookmarked.</p>

<p>Hasn't this been discussed to bits in the other thread?</p>

<p>Yes - in a few different places. It is helpful to see what members would really like. Not that all wishes can be accomodated of course, but member feedback is critical in helping with the redesign.</p>

<p>Well, brand-specific forums aren't quite so cut and dried. Canon FD and Canon EOS could be merged, for instance, but saying all Olympus cameras are mirrorless is misleading and incorrect. You can argue that the OM-1 is a classic or modern film camera but what about OM lenses? Lots of mirrorless folks use them but if I had a question, I'd post it in the Olympus group.</p>

<ol>

<li>The ignore button might be a good thing to have. YMMV</li>

<li>Someone suggested paid mentoring, how about offering to pay some pnet members to do just that, to help folks out? Perhaps a system where user x could view a member's portfolio, falls in love with his/her shots, then offers to become their apprentice? Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.</li>

<li>I'd love to cut out the middle man. APUG, for example, allows paying users to block ads. If I already gave you direct money it might be nice to feel like that was enough. I don't know about the rest of folks here but I've never bought anything, anywhere online, from clicking on an ad.</li>

</ol>

<p>If I had a 4th wish I'd like to pick and choose what items I see on the home page. I come to unified forums exclusively because I don't like the change from the old pnet layout. And if I had a fifth wish, I'd have the option, as a paid subscriber, to never have my email address used by third party advertisers. I was pretty upset pnet agreed to send, on behalf of NYIP, an email <em><strong>from photo.net</strong></em> that promised to make me a better photographer. The gods themselves would balk at that challenge. :) What really irked me is that despite being sent from photo.net there was absolutely nothing photo.net related to the offer. No discounts, no nothin'. The only photo.net content was the money photo.net made on the deal. Again, for the free members, fair game, but for paying subscribers. We already paid our dues.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>40 groups and not one of them is called, <em>Landscape</em>?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>or still life.</p>

<p>I would also like to get <strong>more timely photo news</strong> here. Why do I have to go to PetaPixel and/or DPR for real current photo news, timely equipment reviews and other articles of photographic interest.</p>

<p>I would like to see some of the older stable of articles updated and more training videos, ebooks and pnet webinars available. To heck with Facebook, where is <strong>photo.net TV</strong>?</p>

<p><strong>This site needs fresh content and lots of it to stay interesting and relevant.</strong> </p>

<p>Speaking of content, there are some generous members that do write articles, in various fora, or provide significant technical help to others over long periods of time, without pay or recognition, yet when I have nominated said individuals for HERO status, it falls on deaf ears. The whole recognition for content contributions system needs to be revamped. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of content, there are some generous members that do write articles, in various fora, or provide significant technical help to others over long periods of time, without pay or recognition, yet when I have nominated said individuals for HERO status, it falls on deaf ears. The whole recognition for content contributions system needs to be revamped.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree. Better yet, pay these folks. Content is king. </p>

<p><strong>@ Simon</strong></p>

<p>I find threads easy to ignore, users not so much.</p>

<p><strong>@ Patrick</strong></p>

<p>Is there a possible downside to an ignore button that I've not considered?</p>

<p>By the way, I loved this line: <em>The gods themselves would balk at that challenge.</em></p>

<p>Goes at least double for me...</p>

<p>Personally, I'd prefer a plus 1 or like button - some kind of rating on the responses.</p>

<p>Even people I'd like to ignore occasionally will make a valid point that I might not have thought of - and if I want to ignore someone enough - I just don't open that thread or Pnet for a while - until the thread is gone.</p>

<p>Content is an issue - several forms seem to have gone stagnent or dried up. Sports shooters seem to have migrated for the most part to SportsShooter.com (which is interesting - because while anyone can read the content there - you have a) submit a portfolio b) be recommended by a current member and c) pay to join (i think). Way too much hassle for a sports photography forum, but it probably keeps away the PWC who wants to know if they can shoot indoor gymnastics with a 18-55 kit lens.</p>

<p>Please don't become DWF - another all pay site - where you have to pay just to read the questions... hate, hate, hate that. I'll put up with ads.</p>

 

<p>On the subject of the Ignore User question: I belong to golf website that has that option. One day, there was a post that asked how many users (if any) had chosen to <em>ignore</em> others.</p>

<p>Some users said that no matter how irked they were by certain users, they wouldn't put anyone on ignore. Others chimed in and said they had one or two users on ignore and were much happier because of it.</p>

<p>By the the end of the thread, they had set up an anonymous poll showing which users had been ignored most frequently. On a site with thousands of regular posters there were <em>five</em> users who had been ignored by scores of users.</p>

<p>No, I'm not lobbying for that at PNET, but I maintain that there are but a <em>few</em> here I'd like to read nothing from.</p>

<p>New and/or additional moderators on busier forums are long overdue.<br /> <br />Agree with Louis that content presentation is ten years out of date. Kai at DigitalRev TV may annoy some but his web stats don't lie. Check out his "guest" shoots with Zack Arias and David Hobby on the "Cheap Camera Challenge."</p>

<p>I see the "Ignore" button as counter-productive. Invariably, users start mouthing off about who they'll "ignore," are "ignoring," or have "ignored." This isn't "Survivor."</p>

<p>I personally get more pleasure out of ignoring some of our 'members'/contributors when I have READ their posts. :)</p>

<p>I agree one the need for decreasing the number of forums, but as some of us have seen, when it comes to which to delete and which new to create, it becomes very complicated very fast. Needs and interests among users of PhotoNet are very different and the great number of forums was made to satisfy the greatest number possible. Still, it might be useful to go through the discussions again - without for getting to read earlier discussions on the subject.</p>

<p>The main action to make, as rapidly as possible, in my eyes, is to solve the problem of uploading of photos in the forums - the question of size; solving to problem of "time outs"; harmonizing uploading rules across all forums etc)</p>

<p>I have a very small exclusive series of users (one or two !) I ignore perfectly without a need for a dedicated "feature". I don't see how a "feature" could be made and how it could function.</p>

<p>Not forgetting the old wise saying, when considering what to change : <em>it is easy to change things, but difficult to make improvements</em> (Erasmus).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>This site needs fresh content and lots of it to stay interesting and relevant.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It really depends on the content...it could be just boring and makes PN become irrelevant though it may increase ad revenue a little. It's a difficult balancing act. I personally have clicked other photo web site less and less, because they have too much content I rather ignore and too difficult to find the good stuff...</p>

<p>Real life is like that, there are down times. Not every minute of every hour everyday is interesting and awesome. Talk to your family, have a drink with your room mates, call an old friend, play with your pet cat/dogs, read a book, enjoy a spring time walk...</p>

<p>Sometimes some of the people on PNET reminds me of a bunch of old-timers that who live in the past, hate new-comers, and don't want to change. I give the OP a lot of credit because instead of complaining, he thought about it and provide real constructive feedback. We need to be more open so that we can make this place the great place that it used to be. We need to get more traffic and energy back into this site.</p>

<p>Personally I love the ignore user feature - it is a great idea. Also like the idea of consolidating some of the forums.</p>

 

<p>As far as more content, I agree that the Learning tab, especially when it deals with gear, needs to be updated. For example, the "5 Entry Level DSLR Kits" lists the following:</p>

<ol>

<li>Canon Rebel XSi</li>

<li>Nikon D60</li>

<li>Olympus E-520</li>

<li>Pentax K200D</li>

<li>Sony Alpha A350</li>

</ol>

<p>Granted, buying used, you could get these, but if someone comes here looking to find information about current offerings, this article isn't going to be particularly relevant.</p>

<p>Regarding layout, I like the way most forums have each post in a box, with options to quote the post directly rather than having to copy text from a post and then hit the quote button. </p>

<p>I'd also like to see a macro forum (in addition to the landscape/still life suggestions above). I don't have any problem with the number of forums...I tend to avoid the ones that don't interest me or aren't relevant. More specificity in forums means more relevant topics for the average reader/poster. For example, merging Canon FD and EOS forums would mean that anyone looking for the much lower volume of topics of FD would have to wade through all the EOS posts to find something new, and someone posting a question about FD would get ignored until an FD user visited and did all the wading. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Canon FD and Canon EOS could be merged<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly the worst idea I've heard in a long time. The only thing Canon FD and Canon EOS have in common is the name "Canon". No FD bodies will take EF lenses and no EOS bodies will take FD lenses. They couldn't <em>be</em> more incompatible systems. It would make as much sense as combining the Canon and Nikon forums into one. At least you can adapt Nikon lenses to EOS bodies (though not vice-versa)<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PNET has over 40 (forums) while a site like Fred Miranda has 25</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dpreview has 60 forums, so clearly we need MORE forums not fewer. And they don't even talk about film, darkroom processing, medium or large format photography and other stuff we cover here. So we'd probably need 70 or 80 to cover the extra topics.<br>

<br>

I've been through this discussion <strong><em>FAR</em> </strong>to many times to go though it again. It never gets anywhere and ends up going around in circles. If Cara want's my input, she'll ask me for it I'm sure.</p>

<p>I'd like to be able to organize my Favorites. I would be REAL happy to have that option!</p>

<p>Most of the Canon EOS posts are "what X should I buy for activity Y"<br /> I think that Canon FD would disappear altogether in the flood of such posts.</p>

<p>At least unlike the Nikon forum (where non-AI <em>is</em> pretty well lost in the crush), the Canon folks don't pretend that the older system is compatible.<br /> Moreover, I think I am the only one who still carries a middling sort of grudge about the change to AI. I do now own a few AI and even AF Nikons, however. ;) I guess I figured that being sore about the change didn't make quite as much sense after 40 years, but it's only been 30 some years since the Canon change over. Too soon...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>An easier way to batch delete followed threads would also be useful. Being redirected to My Workspace after clicking delete alert doesn't make sense...why not just let us stay on the page with the followed posts list? But check boxes and a "delete all checked" button would be the most useful.</p>

<p>JDM - LOL! Well, I keep a Nikon D3000 around solely to use my non-AI lenses on, when they aren't on a film body. I can also see other equipment crossovers in Canon though, like the G12 series - they aren't EOS, but they use the EOS flashes. A "mirrorless" forum poster might not know that but lots of Canon-ophiles who have Canon everything, would.</p>

<p><strong>@ Anders</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I have a very small exclusive series of users (one or two !) I ignore perfectly without a need for a dedicated "feature". I don't see how a "feature" could be made and how it could function."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>It's handled easily at other sites. A technical challenge it is not.</p>

<p>Here's a clip of the relevant control panel at the site I mentioned.</p>

<p><img src="http://paulcervantes.smugmug.com/Other/ignore/i-9bFkzsX/0/L/Ignore-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Dpreview has 60 forums, so clearly we need MORE forums not fewer. And they don't even talk about film, darkroom processing, medium or large format photography and other stuff we cover here. So we'd probably need 70 or 80 to cover the extra topics.</em><br /><br /><em>I've been through this discussion <strong>FAR </strong>to many times to go though it again. It never gets anywhere and ends up going around in circles. If Cara want's my input, she'll ask me for it I'm sure."</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em><strong>@ Bob Atkins</strong></p>

<p>DPR is a <strong><em>gear</em></strong> site. They can divide their Fuji forums into compact <em>and</em> X Series and still have plenty of action in both.</p>

<p>That's not gonna happen here, nor would it be desirable.</p>

<p>It's sad to learn that you see discussions like these as mere circular exercises.</p>

<p>By contrast, I'm hopeful that the PNET powers that be are paying close attention.</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

<p>I personally don't like the "ignore" button. Doesn't that really mean censored? I cannot imagine my day being ruined by someone's postings on this or any other forum. It has a Facebook feel to it that I am not comfortable with, and besides, I don't think that's a good way to attract new members. Why comment if people are going to ignore you? The next step from there is, why go to a forum if people are going to ignore you? It just sounds really perverse and small to me, and besides, what does that have to do w/ photography? As for too many categories, boy, that's for sure. I would have a FILM category, and DIGITAL and OFF TOPIC. Anything else could be put under those.</p>