Forum Software?

[kieran_mullen]

Hello!

 

I am a new member current in guest mode. I am taking a look at the

forum and auction layout and to be frank, its ugly. I suppose its ok

for a home brew, which I suppose it is, but there are many other good

forum software packages out there. vBulletin is what $85 a year? Its

the best stuff out there right now.

Kieran

[aardvarko]

Thanks for the sage and expert advice! We really appreciate it!

[emre]

Welcome to phone.net.

<p>

Being new, I suppose you have not read this classic: <A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0050jw">Why is www.photo.net so old tech?</a>

[anthony_m1]

<I>I am a new member current in guest mode.</I><P>stick around a li<B>T</B>le bit

longe<B>R</B> than 1 day and y<B>O</B>u might <B>L</B>ike it. I happen to

<B>L</b>ike the layout of the forums. Better than most. Don't use the auction here, so

cannot comment.

[__hank_boneroneo1]

The train leaves in five minutes.

[bobatkins]

About all I can think of to say is "Duh" (plus sound of hand hitting forhead).

 

Why didn't we think of that...

[pmj]

I know you mean well, but frankly, I think you don't know what you are talking about. photo.net runs on AOLServer/TCL, not Apache/PHP or IIS/ASP, so virtually all mainstream packages are out. Also, the photo.net software is tightly integrated: community pages, comments, photos, forum postings etc. You cannot simply hook up a new package and expect everything to work. Besides, it would probably break the overall look and feel of the site.

 

Besides that, I kinda like the plain style of the forums. Yes, some threads can become rather long, but I think that far better than the multiple-page setups you see in other places. I certainly don't have a need for user-signatures, user-icons and a whole bunch of tiny "reply, quote, goto profile, report to moderator, see posting history" icons next to every posting.

 

(Of course, that last paragraph is a rather personal opinion).

[venicia_l]

Kieran,<p>

 

As evident by the responses, the attitude here is counter to constructive criticism of almost any kind. The fact that you were castigated for being a newcomer is indicative of the entrenchment here. In fact, it takes new eyes to notice the problems, which are glaring.<p>

 

The Sysop cries that he is overworked and underpayed whenever someone advocates any upgrade of the system. (Poor baby. Maybe he needs to do something else, because his frustration is expressed as anger and resentment toward his customers) The system is seriously out of date. It is NOT just a matter of preference for particular software. The old software does NOT serve the viewers well at all. Worse, it is so hard to make changes that the only response we get to such requests is to go away and be quiet. Customer relations or customer service is not a concept that the site understands well, if at all. The decision maker(s) sees rapid growth (a fact that has NOTHING to do with the quality of the site) as a justification for status quo.<p>

 

Quality software and programming should not only provide good services, but should also allow rapid and painless improvements or corrections when they are needed. This site is creaking under its own weight. It is a classic example of a poorly designed system, put together with little anticipation of the need for growth or change, running on antiquated (read obsolete) software. No amount of justification that, "We like it the way it is," changes that.<p>

 

VL

[emre]

phone.net, hahahaha.... Let me write that one down. I swear it was a Freudian slip!

 

If the software does not serve the customers, why are they all here? You have to remember that photo.net was designed before all those bullletin board packages existed. A cranky site is the price you pay for being a pioneer. It is a wonder it has scaled as well as it has.

[mottershead]

Kieran, Venicia: we don't resist constructive criticism. But, you know, "ugly", "home brew", and "why don't you get a good forum package" aren't exactly constructive.

 

Now if you care to mention what features you like from other forum sites that you miss here, then we can have a discussion. It may be that the feature exists already and we can tell you how to find it. Some of the ways in which photo.net forums are different from those that are currently popular are by design, however. And I hope it won't simply be dismissed as obstinately resisting change if we point those things out.

[venicia_l]

"If the software does not serve the customers, why are they all here?"<p>

 

Because the Internet is like a firehose. It delivers "customers" no matter how good or bad the site is. Also, many are here because other problems at at other photography sites make them equally bad in their own ways. That is absolutely no consolation or recommendation for this site!<p>

 

" photo.net was designed before all those bullletin board packages existed. A cranky site is the price you pay for being a pioneer."<p>

 

That's the kind of BS and reactionary thinking that is the core problem and that hampers any improvement. So you admit it is cranky. Funny, I don't remeber that being a desireable attribute of software. There is no justification for cranky. No one who paid a membership paid for cranky.<p>

 

"It is a wonder it has scaled as well as it has."<p>

 

If it's a wonder, then you are only confirming that the software is wanting. For the record it hasn't scaled well.<p>

 

VL

[mottershead]

Venicia, you are still talking in generalities. It would make the conversation a lot more concrete if you mentioned what it is specifically about the photo.net software that sucks, in your opinion.

[venicia_l]

Brian,<p>

 

You're like the guy who says nothing but, "NO!" in the credit card commercial. All you have said to many posters over many months, asking for a variety of improvements is, NO!." Now you want me to enumerate ways in which the site can be improved. Excuse me, but your message strikes me as just a bit ingenuous.<p>

 

How about the ability to enter formatted text here without resorting to inline HTML? How about a unified "look" in all areas of the site? How about the ability to search for images by their category. How about an update of the categories into something relevent? How about the ability to navigate easily throughout the site? How about redesigning the confusing labyrinth of site pages into a coherent, structured hierarchy? How about the ability to view, comment and rate images without becoming lost in the maze? How about paying attention to the people who are complaining about the horrible rating system?<p>

 

You have concluded that the complainers are in the small minority because you are growing so fast, and the great majority of users say nothing. Continue to ignore the minority of people who are the only ones to actually give you feedback at your own peril, Brian.<p>

 

VL

[mottershead]

Actually, Venicia, the only category of complaints that I have actually rejected is complaints about the photo rating system. Even there, my main objections are to the 10 or so people who have posted literally thousands of times making the same points repeatedly about the photo rating system. A couple of them have more posts in the SF forum criticizing the photo rating system than my own thousands of posts here. My objection is based on the fact that I think it fills up the forum with stuff that is both discouraging to potential newcomers, and which (since it is not in accord with how we view the site), is not something to which we are going to respond.

Also, since I am obliged to read the SF forum in case somebody says something I need to know about, it is basically demoralizing to read it all the time. Other people can just stop reading the SF forum (great idea!) but I can't. I am basically at wits end on how to get Carl Root, Marc G, and a few others to go away and leave me alone. It is almost like they are demanding that I should ban them from this forum, and eventually I am probably going to have to do that.

 

On many of the points you have mentioned (not all), if you check the archives you will find that I have agreed that those things would be improvements.

[venicia_l]

Regarding the entire first paragraph, I'm sorry Brian, but you really do NOT understand the concept of customer service. And you view censorship as the answer to complaints. When my subscription runs out, I will not renew for THAT reason alone.<p>

 

As for the second comment, then implement them.<p>

 

I make my living in this profession. The river doesn't flow to my door. I have long ago recognized the need to implement excellence for its own sake. And customer relations is the bedrock of my company. Mediocrity is death.<p>

 

Right now the river IS flowing to your door, and you are concluding that it always will. You are very wrong. You react to criticism with defensiveness. And you are very arrogant. And I've used up the few minutes that I care to spare on this site as a member of the minority giving you honest feedback.<p>

 

VL

[mottershead]

Venicia, you are absolutely 100% right. The customer is always right. Yessiree. You see, I understand customer service just fine. Thanks for your feedback. Your call is important to us. Have a nice day. Y'all come back now, sweetie.

[bobatkins]

My take on the Site Feedback forum as it currently exists is that, in general, it's not good for the site.

 

A better model might be a page where anyone could post a comment (something like a guestbook), but only the poster of a question or someone actually associated with running the site (forum moderators, site administrators) would be able to read it and reply. Thus it could answer questions - which is one of its major functions - and site administration would be informed of real problems with the site.

 

Having feedback (and much of it from a small handful of users) which constantly criticizes administration and "develops ideas for the site" is counterproductive. Those making suggestions often have no clue as to how the site works or even the philosophy and business model of the site. They can babble on forever, but their ass isn't on the line if they're wrong and as I mentioned before, 99% of the time they simply don't know enough about the facts concerning running the site to make any sort of useful suggestion and they don't know what the ultimate goals of the site are, nor do they know the limitations of the resources which available to run and make changes to the site.

 

Luckily I don't have to run this site. If I did and I had to read everything posted in this forum, I'd be tempted to shoot myself.

 

It's not that site administration is arrogant, or that it doesn't want to hear ideas, it's that you can only take so much "advice", especially when it's basically the same stuff repeated over and over again and much of it is bad "advice".

 

If I ran the site, there are things I'd do differently, but that doesn't mean I'd be right and Brian would be wrong. We'd be different. It's not my site. If I ran it, it might well be bankrupt by now. I'm more than happy that Brian runs things here. The fact that the site isn't bankrupt and that revenue and membership is growing is strong evidence that the overall direction in which Brian is steering the site on is a sound path - even if it's not the path that you might have chosen.

 

Overall I'm happy with the site. The thing that amazes me is that it runs as well as it does, not that there are a few things here and there that don't operate quite in the way that I'd personally like them to.

 

[bTW the copyright date in the page footers needs updating to 2005. However if it doesn't get done, I won't be upset...]

[venicia_l]

Brian,<p>

 

Thanks for confirming my description of your attitude. (Come on Brian, do you really think I'm a sweetie?)<p>

 

Bob,<p>

 

I frankly don't really care that much. But if I read one more time how tough the Sysop has it, I'll puke. If it is so hard for him, and if it is so terrible that he has to put up with the opinions of contributors on a site designed to allow people to publish their opinions, and if he is barely making enough personally to survive (his complaint), and if he works such long hours, why does he continue.<p>

 

I don't agree that his direction is what is making this site grow. I think he has acquired a GOOD THING and doesn't know how good he has it. But like so many others who have learned their "business sense" on the isolation and annonymity of the Net, he is wildly out of touch with the courtesy and thought that is required in the real business world.<p>

 

Interestingly, that is also true for the great majority of the participants here who care not one wit about the site, participation nor photography itself for that matter. They come here in droves to post their images, because they have digital cameras, it is easy to post and they then have recognition. And Brian then has numbers. And those numbers translate into revenue because advertisers still recognize raw numbers as meaningful (amazingly).<p>

 

It's a curious, fragile and flawed business model that persists. What do I know? I guess if you drive enough cattle past an advertising banner, enough of them blindly buy enough merchandise to justify the cost of advertising.<p>

 

VL

[mottershead]

Venicia, you make a lot of assumptions concerning me, my background, the site, its revenue model and financial situation, and other matters. It is amazing how one person can get so much so wrong in such a short post.

 

Oh wait, the customer is always right. Nobody ever won an argument with a customer. The customer is always right. All work and no play makes Brian a dull boy....

[bobatkins]

I suppose you know that Brian was the one who designed and built the Gallery section single handed? Before Brian became responsible for the site, there was no Gallery. If you think the Gallery has any value at all, you now know who to thank. I guess if you think the site would be better off without the Gallery, you know who to blame (but my guess is that without the advertising and subscriber income that the Gallery generates, this site would be dead by now).

 

Those who think the site is, or should be, financially well off simply have no knowledge of the debt legacy that came along with this website. In the dotcom boom and bust, photo.net was a financial bust. The fact that it's still around when most of the other dot.com busts declared bankrupcy can only be seen as a positive comment on management (i.e. the Luminal Path board of Directors) and the site administration.

[laurie_m]

I don't think Kieran's coming back.

[WJT]

I did not know that! I had always assumed that it was left over from Greenspun. For the most part, I think the Gallery is a great feature and operates quite well. I also like the overall "look and feel" of PhotoNet. Its simplicity (from a user's viewpoint) is the beautiful part ; it does not detract from the photography or from the knowledge it disperses. I am not saying that everything here is as I myself would like it to be, but I just reupped for three years. That says something. <p>

By the way, I always like to see that Classic Thread that Emre posted the link to get an airing now and then. It really sort of humbles one. Regards.

[anthony_m1]

It's one of the only web sites I can stand visiting on a regular basis. It is extremely easy to navigate and clean. The forums are among the best I have experienced in terms of ease of use. I have only been a member since Nov. 2002 but I can say it's the only site I have visited on a regular basis time after time. I have tried the other photo sites and they really just don't compare. One persons opinion. <P>My subscription wasn't given because I thought the site needed funds but because I get use out of the site and would feel bad not subscribing. I really could care less how well off this site is and it doesnt factor into me paying 25.00 a year.

[bobatkins]

I think Kieran should give us another chance.

 

It's probably obvious that if you join a website that's been operating pretty well for 10 years and on the same day make a post that it's basically ugly and substandard, your comments won't exactly be welcomed.

 

If you've been a member and used the site for 6 months and still have that opinion, then it might be given slightly more weight, though then you'd have to ask why someone who thought the site was ugly and substandard hung around for 6 months...

[mottershead]

First impressions are valid also; after six months of drinking the site Kool-aid, some of your opinions probably have more context, but you've lost some of the freshness with which you first approached the site.

 

I'd like to know what Kieran found confusing or disappointing about the site. (Really.) It's true that sometimes people think it looks old-fashioned, and some of the first impression is due to it simply not looking "modern". I must admit that I'm not too interested in changing photo.net's "retro" style just to make it look "modern". I'm also not too interested in some "modern" forum features, such as thread-based interfaces. But I am interested in knowing about other features that people miss from other forum software.