Found in another photo community website...

[axelg]

Sometimes I notice some PN members also belong to other online photo

communities. On one of those I found the following:

<br><br>"We don't want:<br>Cute snapshots of your pets.

<br>Pornographic material. We don't want it.

<br>Sharing family snapshots. There are other sites for that, please

not here.

<br>Sunset shots, only if it's very different.

<br>Pictures of flowers, unless done in an extraordinary way.

<br>Cute baby photos, we know you're excited, but we just want unusual

photography."<br><br>I just wanted to notice that because I get pretty

irritated when folks with one pic of the latest newborn of the family

puts a 2/2 without the single justification. I guess PN gets more and

more members who exhibit images with no special photographic

interest... I am not requesting quotas (!) but perhaps PN should warn

newcomers about what they should share with others or not... Any comments?

[dan flanders]

With all those topics eliminated just what is left that would hold your interest? Abstractions, out of focus bar shots, weird patterns on buildings? Maybe there are good reasons this site is appealing to such a large audience!

[kathywilson]

Hi Axel!

It would be great to know what to post or not, but I think the problem is that PN would like everything, and so alows most anything, but a certain percentage of the PN public doesn't like landscapes, or birds, or pets, or nudes (ok, maybe not that, everyone seems to like nudes) or abstracts, or anything digital, or manipulated, or.... but you probably see the point by now <g> No one site will ever please everyone. Posted an image for C/R today and once again got hit with 3/3 from ppl who have no posted photos, joined only in the last 2 or 3 days, and left no comment. *That* burns me more than anything. I sent them polite notes asking what I could have done better, but I doubt I'll hear from them. But PN is still one of the better photo sites imo. Photo[sig] is too elitist and stuffy for me, other sites bombard you with ads or pressure you to buy prints, or limit your space/number of photos, or display them too small to get any real worth... it's always something. PN has it's flaws too, but it gets more right than the other sites imo. Now if only it could do something about human nature! :)

[sammm]

The best culinary schools in the country usually include as part of their entrance exam that students cook an egg.

 

It's simple, it's basic, and to do it perfectly, truly perfectly, is quite difficult.

 

I would say the same about photos of flowers, sunsets, babies and pets.

[cappoldt]

Kathy, a lot of those rates on you are from "Bots," auto-running rating software bugs that some jerk spends his time writing to frustrate you and the site admins. Report the "identities" that are brand new and rating with nothing of their own posted to abuse@photo.net. Here and again it's legit, but mostly if they haven't posted a pic or said a word, just been out spreading a nice even "fan spread" of ratings, they're bots. You have to tell abuse@photo.net about it every time though - best way to give a "heads up."

[rui fernandes]

Axel, one of the things that pleases me in PN is the liberty and diversity of subjects. I allways start from the POW and Featured Portfolio, and I've never been desappointed with quality in diversity. I like photography, no mater the subject, there's allways the chance to see with different eyes!

 

About ratings, that's life, be prepare to filter what and how to learn in each valid opinion. Ratings without justification, good or bad, will never help you to understand because theres just a matter of personnel taste.