Why is Ken Rockwell site banned on Photo.net?

<p>Hi, just a though of a free world... I don't understand why you cannot post links to KR site.<br>

The nonsense excuse of Photo.net is the phrase "If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction". Come on! if you really are a little bit smarter than an APE you can detect sarcasm!<br>

Besides, it's not like that. The site has some ironic phrases but ir really has much much more true content.</p>

<p>Photo.net: "That is not to say there is no good information at all on Ken Rockwell's site, but there is simply way too much nonsense that confuses photo.net readers."<br>

Who's to judge the quality of the info for us? We are not childs... we can read what we want and take our conclusions later. Thanks for taking the trouble, but no, thanks!<br>

Regards</p>

<p>As Hitler says in the parody rant on the Nikon D3x (search Youtube, and links have been posted in several threads here) , "Call Ken Rockwell, I think he's on to something."</p>

<p>It's not. Some individual forum moderators may have found that references to that site (or other sites) cause more problems than they solve and/or spread more misinformation than useful knowledge and so have elected to limit links in order to maintain the quality of their forum. If <em>you</em> want to read it, that's up to you.</p>

<p>Photo.net as a whole does not prohibit linking to any non-spam website. We occasionally do get spammers who attempt to promote some commercial sites (usually selling cell phones or drugs), and those may be banned "site wide".</p>

<p>I did find him as a member of PhotoNet and the link is working.I don't know what happened to you . Here it is:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=207498<br>

I found this in another post about him,LOL</p>

<div></div>

<p>I wish it were banned. Every once in a while, you get posts on photo.net by readers who got confused by it. We shouldn't have to clean up the messes he leaves behind. That disclaimer (you need good BS detector) is not sarcasm. It is in there so he doesn't have to take any responsibility for what he says.</p>

<p>I read his site, for entertainment, or when I feel like getting annoyed. I even have it bookmarked, as can be seen in the image below.</p><div></div>

<p>LOL, that is a good one.Sorry but I feel like laughing today</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>The fact that you feel irresistibly compelled to provide links to Ken Rockwell's site proves that the Hypnotoad brainwaves are working.</p>

<p>You will now set your digital camera to JPEG basic... it is perfect... perfect... perfect... the raw is a lie... raw is a lie... raw is a lie...</p>

<p>Yes Lex, RAW is a lie ;)</p>

<p>haha .. nah... I'll use jpeg basic for my family photos. If I want the best possible quality I'll use film (he he just kidding... I use raw)</p>

<p><em>The fact that you feel irresistibly compelled to provide links to ... (the site we are discussing)<br /> </em></p>

<p>I sure didn't feel compelled to link to that site. And please notice that some of us were careful, in our references to the site in question, to use pronouns, thus avoiding even using his name or initials. In my case, I decided that naming the person we are talking about was acceptable in an image of my bookmarks, because no one is likely to apply OCR to photo.net images to count the number of times that person is referenced. Of course, adding to this thread couldn't be helped if I was going to comment.</p>

<p>KR sprinkles a bunch of BS in with some good stuff or the reverse. When you send the uneducated there, they can`t tell the difference. Then someone has to clean that up.</p>

<p>The point of the OP is simply this, it's a free world. Now I'm not familiar with this guy but I gather he has his own site and utters a lot of nonsense. Let's not forget that on most photorelated sites there are thousands of people who proclaim nonsense.</p>

<p>The point is this. People who are serious about photography will (and should) learn to distuingish BS from valuable information and for that the internet can be a valuable aid but it's hardly the most important or best one.</p>

<p>I don't see why anyone here should feel responsible for cleaning up whatever.</p>

<p>I am not sure why some people like to put Ken Rockwell down. His writings/essays/advices and photography are fine. You may not agree (perhaps you consider yourself superior?) but many like them or at least have no problem with them.</p>

<p>Those who want to go there can. You can mention the site here and direct others there. It's just that on some forums you can't post a direct link to it.</p>

<p>This site does feel a responsibility for cleaning up a mess, and many users do too. Perhaps that's what makes the photo.net forums different from some other which don't seem to care at all what gets posted as long as something gets posted.</p>

 

<p>

PS. NOTE that this isn't (and won't degenerate into) a discussion of the worth of any particular website. It's about a policy which some forums may have of not directly linking to sites which contain questionable information in the view of the forum moderator(s).

<p>I am not either partial or impartial to the mentioned person's ideas or comments. But just for the record, I just visited your photo.net page and there is also a lack of modesty on it as well there is on the discussed person website. I might get banned for this, but is really what I think. Just my two cents.</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>Keep in mind also that the more we natter on about Ken, the more he benefits from greater exposure and name recognition. And has anyone ever once seen Ken complain online about the jabs some of us take at him? I haven't. The guy probably laughs about all the hoohah. This is free publicity. He probably wishes more sites would "ban" him. It makes others curious and want to visit his site, which benefits him.</p>

<p>So why get upset? He doesn't seem to.</p>

<p>FWIW, I find some of his comments and reviews useful. But I have brain. It tells me to poke the appetizing looking thing before eating it, y'know', just to be sure it's dead, properly cleaned and dressed. You'd be surprised how many folks don't engage brain before swallowing. Then they come to photo.net with fugu poisoning and we have to extract the blowfish.</p>

<p>You're right Lex, he is getting free publicity after all. Let us all stop this thread,it's not worth it.</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>Robert - In general, accuracy is valued over modesty.</p>

<p>My own site contains my own personal views. However as far as I know it's never been attacked on the basis of providing inaccurate, biased or misleading information. It's also never controversial for the sake of being controversial. If it was I expect I could attract more readers.</p>

<p>I read Ken's site on occasion. It can be entertaining, though it's probably not the site I'd visit first for accurate and unbiased information. It's more like a personal blog, which is fine. Everybody has their fans and critics.</p>

<p>For the record the EOS forum (which I moderate) allows links to Ken's site because so far such links have not resulted in any problems. In fact the EOS forum has no restrictions on links to any other photography websites</p>

<p>I always love his Raw vs JPG article. Never ceases to make me smile.</p>

<p>No one has ever provided incorrect information on photo.net.</p>

<p>If you can point to any incorrect information in any of the static content articles and reviews on photo.net, I'll be glad to take a look at it and make sure that any necessary corrections are made. Feel free to post those errors right here if you don't want to email.</p>

<p>Anything appearing on the site goes through several levels of review. Most of the errors are caught, but I'm sure that something occasionally slips through and we're happy if it's brought to our attention so that we can correct it.</p>

<p>What gets said in the forums is another matter of course, but that's generally beyond the control of the site. We monitor what we can, but we can't monitor everything and people who aren't associated with the site are entitled to their opinions, even when they are clearly wrong!</p>

 

<p>Here are some musings of what others think... http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts</p>

<p>Good 'un, Bob. This one cracked me up:</p>

<blockquote><a href="http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts"> The term tripod was coined after his silhouette</a></blockquote>

<p>And this statement from KR on his own blog shows he doesn't take this stuff too seriously:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2007-03-new.htm">20 March 2007, Tuesday</a> <br /> I'm most comfortable when people call me an idiot. It means I'm making people think. I enjoy it. Oddly I found <a href="http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts" target="_blank">this</a> in a slightly different realm, which I think is hilarious.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"I am not sure why some people like to put Ken Rockwell down. His writings/essays/advices and photography are fine"</p>

<p>Mary...I have been using Contax for years. Rockwell 'reviewed' a Zeiss lens...amongst the review was a so-called short history of Contax. After the 8th totally incorrect Rockwell 'fact' I gave up counting. He simply did not know what he was talking about....either he does not care or he does nil research or his research stinks. Either way if you treat any Rockwell writing as 'fact' you better watch out...as they are not.</p>

<p>cheers Steve.</p>

<p>Ladies and gentlemen,<br>

Amateur radio operators have a saying; "if you do not like what is being said on one repeater, then switch to another, or just turn of your rig."<br>

In other words, if you do not like what Ken Rockwell has to say, go to, or find another site that suites you. No one says or said you have to go to Mr. Rockwells site.<br>

There is plenty of other sites on the big wide web you can go visit; which I often do.<br>

And remember, when you read someones review of any photographic equipment, whether it is Ken Rockwell or Thom Hogan, it is their personal views; yours may be different.</p>