What Can We Do About This Site?

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by Rod Sorensen, Mar 22, 2017.

  1.  
  2. to degrade into a non-competitive state through entropy because the site is inherently non-competitive in today's market.
     
  3. [W]hen casual browsing becomes frustrating because navigation is such a challenge; then time becomes a decision as to whether or not it's worth the effort. --Mike Mancil
    I am trying to be neutral, but that is the bottom line: is it worth the time and trouble? Each of us has to make that decision for himself or herself. I am not trying to pile on here. I am simply stating what I hope is or ought to be obvious: we (some of us) aren't here very much these days because it is too time-consuming to be here, and time is our most precious resource.

    I have no intention of leaving the site. I am, believe it or not, a loyalist. There is a reason (if anyone wants to know) why some of us are not visiting more often, and Mike Mancil has told us very clearly what it is: it is about time. Speaking for myself, in this incarnation of Photo.net, I simply don't have that much time for the site, at least for now. I sincerely hope that it improves, and I hope that Glenn succeeds in improving it.

    --Lannie
     
  4. I might argue that it is not the entropy that is non-competitive according to your claim then, on the contrary if it denotes a state of degradation or decline, I guess that is what confused me : -).

    As regards PN however, I feel it would be more productive to simply point out the problems we encounter and give the administrators the opportunity to study them and find solutions, which they are doing on a regular basis.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  5. Seems to me both John Peri and Dick Arnold, both respected members of and contributors to the PN community, are each entitled to their feelings even though and, perhaps, especially because they are so different. Diversity is productive.
     
  6. I really miss old look of Photo.net site. When I started here, some like 14 years ago, we had 1-7 scale Aesthetics and Originality rating system and some serious discussions below users' photos. I learned a lot and spent so many hours studying masterpieces provided by the Timecatchers team and a lot more great landscape photographers. Now, every single website looks the same: we see big photos and very few small icons with no description, minimum text (kids-like design), it is therefore more simple watching than deeper thinking about what we see. Everything comes down to browse faster, click "like it" and next, next one please and so on. It's not the direction I'd like the Photo.net follow in the future.
     
    LindaM and Tony Brandstetter like this.
  7. It seems over night we went from an artistic site to a photo viewing site, you can't tell the difference from View Bug. Perhaps they will generate more picture takers to join, which will help with the bottom line. I wonder how many photographers will stay on and or sign up?
     
  8. I am not interested in arguing over words. I ran a large aviation engineering organization doing aviation R&D. We did a lot of work, as the Navy did with human interface. Hundreds of hours of work and subject testing went into human interaction with aircraft controls and displays. In my humble opinion attention needs to be paid to ease of use issues in the new version. In aviation that meant calling in users to test potential human interface alternatives well before going to ninal design. If nothing else do some more beta testing with casual uninformed users like me to find anomalies in the human interface. In my limited use of this system I find it difficult to move between functions. I believe after being a member here for over ten years that the site has lost a lot of its former appeal. I am hopeful that this new renovation will restore some of the vigor that used to be here. This site has promoted useful dialog between members that has made it quite interesting and develped long term relationships between members. I bet the average user age has increased significantly over the years along with a decline in membership.. The redo is a step in the right direction but in order to continue it, IMO, needs to develop a new, younger user base. I have noticed that DP Review reports a lot on cell phones and their photographic use. I like to dream and read about the latest photo gear enen if I never buy something. PN is well worth saving and the redo was over duie. .
     
  9. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Believe we're stuck with the current version, with some likely fixes and possibly enhancements. Reminds me of an old joke.
    How many PNET 1 users does it take to change a light bulb? 3, one to change the bulb and two to reminisce about how great the old bulb was.
    Onward & upward, make do, or do something else.
     
  10. Sorry guys for bad spirit but... Until when we will have to suffer photo.net 2.0 bad performance?
    Not going to renew my subscription until looking pictures doesn't feel a nightmare... It is so bad.
    Admins should set a performance target and try to achieve it in X months, if not possible then roll back.
     
  11. Performance for me is excellent. I wonder if there's some user problems keeping some from fully enjoying the excellent experience.
     
  12. Some specific issues with the gallery section.
    1. Takes a looong time to load the photos (depending on time of the day). It seems, the kind of computing power that makes such dynamic fast loading of photos possible in sites like instagram is missing in PN. This is understandable, since PN is much smaller in terms of revenue and resources than those other mega-sites, but IMO its best to eat what one can swallow. The old site was more proportional in that respect.

    2. From within a particular gallery, if I click on a photo, it takes me to the photo's page. Then if I click the back button, instead of taking me to the source gallery (which is the intuitive behavior), it takes me back to the profile page. I then have to scroll down again to find which gallery I was viewing.

    3. I can't see all the photos in a gallery, even after clicking 'load more'. For example, I have 146 or so photos in one of my galleries. I can hardly see 50% of them.

    4. The order in which the photos are displayed in a gallery is not clear. Usually one would expect the latest photos to be shown first, but that's not the case. Also, there is no option to order the photos by date, views, admires etc.
     
    RickW and Gerald Cafferty like this.
  13. I think that the developers need to know more about or OS and hardware and connectivity to diagnose the issues. I'm running Window 10/65 and a 4.2mhz processor, with 16GB of RAM, through a 100mb cable connection. I have absolutely no problems with the site.
     
  14. My problem is how long will this site still be around. I am here for the great infos I get from other people (thank you everybody), which is free, and for the storage of a few photos that I can show to different kind of people when necessary. This is why I am paying, and I will not renew my subscription because I have lost trust in the future of PN, And I dont want to invest any more tme in moving up photos here that I will have soon to upload elsewhere with my present stock.
     
  15. If you're concerned, then you might describe the system your using. To cite an extreme case, you could be using 32-bit, Windows XP, with a 1.2mHz processor, on a dial-up connection. That would be hopeless and no one would design a system today, just to meet those needs. I suspect that many users are somewhere in between my, "no problem" mode and your frustrated user mode. Perhaps the administrators should sponsor a survey of user systems vs. satisfaction, to see what correlation they see, that might lead to some enhancements for the broadest cast of users.
     

  16. I don't think the problems I am facing regarding the slow loading of photos is related to my computer setup or bandwidth. My computer is a 2013 model Macbook pro with core i7 processor and 16 GB RAM. I have high-speed broadband internet (TWC, 100Mb/s) at home, where I have no problem streaming 4K videos from youtube. The problem is with the PN servers and how they are optimizing the webpages.

    The other issues I mentioned have nothing to do with computer setup or internet bandwidth.
     
    dcstep likes this.
  17. What part of the country are you in? I'm in Colorado, with no consistent problems with the servers. I have had one or two momentary slowdowns, but that's been very rare. I use Chrome as my browser, BTW.
     
  18. I have recently tried out Flickr and SmugMug, and routinely look at photos from PDML colleagues on a variety of sites.

    NO, it's NOT my hardware or connection. Photo.net is badly, badly broken, and hope for recovery is fading.

    Rick
     
  19. I use all those sites and my experience here is consistent with those. The problems are apparently not nationwide with this site. I wonder if there's problems with the servers, interacting differently in different parts of the USA. I wonder what our international users see.

    The site works fine in Colorado. With the addition of BBCode, I'm participating way more than I did before the excellent upgrade. At least it's an upgrade for me.
     
  20. I am in California (LA) using Safari browser. I tested on Firefox and Chrome as well with no difference in performance. I think, the speed and performance have improved from the first days of the new site, but I wish they were still better. Especially, every time I hit the back button, I have to wait for the last page to reload. In the old site, the images were simply cached and the loading was instantaneous. Moreover, the same waiting time is involved whether I click on a single photo or a person's profile, or a gallery view (a single photo should take less time to load compared to a gallery full of images). I timed it just now. Loading a gallery for me takes about 4-6 seconds. Loading a single photo takes 4 seconds, and then 4 more seconds to load up all the comments. I can live with this, but it just makes the viewing experience lot less smooth.
     

Share This Page