bobatkins Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Yup, there is a search function. Glad you found it - all part of the fun. Those OTHER sites have big search boxes with circles and arrows around them. We prefer to use a more discrete approach.<p> <em> "Seek and ye shall find"</em> (well, some of the time ye will). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Please don't change the way it looks. It's where I live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Don't feel bad about not noticing the "Search" icon, Jon. For years I couldn't figure out that simply clicking on the photo.net icon at the top of the page would take me to the main page. I would click on the address bar and find the photo.net address and click on that. It is because of mentally challenged persons such as myself that they must never change the appearance of the site. I won't be able to find my way back home again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Is photo.net old looking ?No it is just that most of us on here probably are ! If there is one thing that would help it is an instent spiel chucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venicia_l Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 It just really annoys me to have people complaining that the Photo.net software is lacking. Real photographers don't need graphical interfaces or slick software that actually works to appreciate good photography. In fact, I think this site really does too much hand-holding and enabling of contributors who constantly demand too much.<p> There would be nothing wrong at all with Photo.net being completely text oriented. No images at all. Any one who couldn't appreciate the characteristics of an image by its text description alone has no business calling himself or herself a photographer.<p> The change would save Brian an enormous amount of work and give him much more time to run all the calculations he does on all the useless data the site generates. Why, he could carry out his various statistical analyses on ratings to far more decimal places than presently done (never mind that the meaningless numbers are single digits to begin with).<p> I for one, would be so happy for him if he wouldn't have to ask for the millionth time, "Well instead of just complaining, what features do you think the site is lacking?"<p> What's important around here anyhow? A site that works or a content administrator? Y'know what I'm saying?<p> VL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 <em>If there is one thing that would help it is an instent spiel chucker</em> <p> <a href="http://www.iespell.com/">ieSpell</a> <p> I full agree with Venica. Before we had all those pictures, the place wasn't constantly barraged with complaints about ratings. People actually sometimes talked about photography. In fact, though I'm not sure I believe this, I'm told there was a time when people's own opinions about their work mattered more to them than the opinions of total strangers. I know, it's hard to believe, but I have it on good authority that it's true. It's said that they would work in order to create images that pleased them, rather than other people. Amazing! Personally I don't believe it of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbass_wil Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 >Here you get the whole thread on a single page.< <BR><BR>Yes! That's absolutely my favorite thing about photo.net.<BR> <BR>I love the simple forum layout, the lack of graphic doo-dads to load.<BR> <BR> One suggestion I have though:<BR> Instead of only allowing the sorting of pages of threads by starting date, offer the option of sorting by date of most recent post.<BR> <BR> Why? Sometimes a really good topic stimulates a lot of discussion that can go on for a while. Meanwhile it'll gradually get lost down the page of topics, when it may actually still be the most lively and active one.<BR> <BR> But that would just be an improvement to an already very functional layout. I value the organization that has already evolved.<BR> <BR> Peter Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 this is a functionally outstanding site (okay, not perfect, but what is?). i don't care about how it "looks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_e Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Do I need still more LIFESTYLE around me? No. RE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioacchino_formuso Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 "Those OTHER sites have big search boxes with circles and arrows around them. We prefer to use a more discrete approach." Maybe the other ones have big search boxes but they work out. Another approach? Yes, a none working one. Search for: Firefox server You will get 3 links. None of them points to http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AsrL Another example? Look for Mozilla. Among the results you won't find http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008mht You have to look manually for them. Yes, I did report these errors to the admin. No answers. Old looking maybe not, that's not the problem. A working site with Firefox I would like to have. In the first link is reported "the problem is fixed". I wrote to the admin that it isn't fixed. No answers. And still I can't access it every time ... with Firefox. Design for sure is not the first goal but a working site ... with established standards. Sorry, for the rant but sometimes a "we like the old style" smells of "we don't want to upgrade" because it means a lot of work. Having running a page means also to update this page sometimes. This doesn't mean following every new trend. But times are changing. Also for photo.net. Saluti Gioacchino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 You know the internet has come full circle when we describe web pages as having a "retro" look. Omigood photo.net is sooooo like 1998ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphanius Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I've found on main page another updated feature in PN web layout design, called spidertrap (only achieved by very close visual inspection by advanced PN users, lol). By the way, Brian... why not making this 1 x 1 pixel link completely invisible? It's quite distracting to me (lol again) ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Congratulations for finding the spidertrap. Unfortunately there is no prize. It's a page designed to catch spidering robots which don't follow the spider rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphanius Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Oooops... no prize :) Well, my suggestion was serious, because browser "legal" visitors wouldn't have to see it (I mean it's not necessary to them to see it). Maybe setting "point character" font color to white? Another security suggestion would be to rename spidertrap to another word not containing the words spider or trap, in order to bypass spider robot anti-trap filtering (I don't know if those programs can filter security contents, but probably they may). Best regards :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 To Peter Wilson,<br>I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I think the feature you're looking for already exists... just click the "New Answers" link at the top of the page, and you'll get the threads ordered by the most recent replies. So, since I just added to this thread, it will appear at the top of the New Answers list (at least for a minute or two...)<Br>Kai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I think it looks great the way it is! No BS JAVA/FLASH buttons to deal with, simple navigation (some of it can be improved perhaps), EASY to read posts. Excellent, all the way around. One of the few last sites on the WWW that hasn't used JAVA/FLASH just for the sake of using it. The goal here is to xchange information in a quick and concise manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Photo.net rocks. Don't change a thing about the UI.<br> It is the most user friendly photography site for anybody still on dial-up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 today I discovered an incipient photo website, based in Vancouver, Canada, still in its beta development, that has the potential to thoroughly kick this and all the rest in a very short time. the people who run it are young, savvy, with a breezy attitude, and absolutely dedicated to providing service to its members. they seem to know precisely what they are doing, provide development and site problem updates via a companion blog site, provide a range of user privacy controls, and have provide a thoroughly supported and ridiculouly easy photo upload, category tagging and set-sorting interface, and in a package that is dial-up friendly and blows anything I have seen. and there are extremely generous free and subscription levels of usage... it's called FLICKR, and it's the 21st century wave of the future here now... http://flickr.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I doubt that the chronic complainers have any idea as to how sophisticated this site really is. It is also functioning much more efficiently than it was two or three years ago--and with massive numbers of new visitors. Is it the easiest site to navigate? No, but the reason is simple: this is a very complex site with an incredible network of features. While it it true that we do not always have the most recent reviews of every new camera, there has never been a sense of provincialism that tries to keep persons from linking to other sites. Besides, there are constant allusions to dpreview.com and to other sites that complement the features of photo.net. This is a truly cosmopolitan site that is not perfect--just the best there is. That becomes more and more obvious the longer one stays here and interacts on many levels. I just wish that I could use the ALT-Numeric Keypad feature to use accent marks when typing foreign words. The international dimension of the site is one of its srongest features, but we should never take that internationalism for granted. Brian is on very solid ground in asking for specific suggestions. Individual proposals can be dealt with, but general hostility toward the site bespeaks a certain irrationality. Nothing is ever accomplished with that kind of negativism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Howard, you have got to be kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 There are dozens of photo sharing sites. It's not hard to build one. Hell, you can BUY one that works pretty well for $100 or you can get an open souce one for free and modify it however you want. It's trival for anyone with reasonable programming ability What's tricky is to integrate it into a true photography website. Despite all those other photo sites, folks seem to stick here. Even though they complain all the time, they stay here. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 nope. not kidding. if arranging and presenting your photos any which way you want lickety-split to whomever you want doesn't interest you, well then... "don't worry, be happy." (-: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_foto Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 <p>"<i>Even though they complain all the time, they stay here. I wonder why?</i> <p>simple. the complainers are a small minority set in their ways. but for most of us, the best parts of the site are long established (the content forums) and you don't have to be logged in to read them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Howard, I hope you are kidding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Howard, after you posted the first reference to flickr.com, I went to the site and registered. I see what it does, and I see what it doesn't do. (Upload times were quite long, by the way. I uploaded one photo, and then my own photo.) I was a bit revulsed by hearing "comments" or "remarks" referred to as "testimonials." (Sounds more like a religious site to me.) I was more than a bit revulsed by seeing the first ad for the site (ON the site) as "This is not your grandfather's photo site," or words to that effect. I wasn't exactly thrilled to see options such as publishing your gender and sexual availability or lack thereof. In short, it is a sophomoric site create by some young guys with technical skills and no clue as to what makes a good photo site. It is absolutely terrible. I am sure that it will get better, as these guys age and get a little more general experience, if it survives long enough. You just bashed an accomplished photographer who commented on one of my pictures. I see the same tendency to bash those who might have a few gray hairs on the part of the administrators of flickr.com. I deleted my account after seeing a few more weaknesses of the site. I doubt that I will go back, although they have nowhere to go but up. As for the age issue, all that I can say is that, if you are going to bash persons who are somewhat older, then time definitely is not on your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now