Bogus hotlinks infecting PhotoNet posts!

[karl_price]

Brian,

I see the links are gone now but I'm guessing they may be coming back. If you can dig that link out to opt out and it doesn't require me giving up my mothers maiden name that would be great.

 

By the way, I'm with Ben on the terms of service and paying up the $25.00. I know there are people that are out of the country and have other issues that literally can't get the money to photonet, but if you can afford photography and the ability to be online and share your "intellectual property" with the masses, you could probably spring for the $25.00.

 

It's a shame you can't cash in on everone's two cents worth. Photonet would be paying dividends.

[phongkim]

In order to increase the number of subsribers, it would help if PN improve its services first - don't expect more people to join if the service getting worst. For example, there have been a lot of server errors, slow reponse from the servers, abnormal ads lately. This may cause some people to take the free route or to go some place else. I know what that vice president (probably the same one that came up with the "ad link" idea) may be saying ...To provide better service, we need money for server upgrade...bigger CPU, more memory, etc...so we have no choice but to sell more ads. Although that may be true in some cases, most of the time, there are other ways to cut operation cost and improve services at the same time. For example, if PN put a cap on the image file size, it could easily free up extra diskspace and processing power (what does size have anything to do with it? what does processing power have anything to do with it? Good question! Those small and medium and cache photos do require CPU time to build from the master photos, don't they?). Instead of serving just a few members with a couple huge images (1MB to 10MB per photo), the server could have served 100 other photos of smaller file size. If you are looking for improvement, putting a cap on file size probably is a good place to start.

 

Btw, do you ever wonder why a 2.2 GHz AMD processor can go head to head against an Intel 4.0 GHz processor? The answer probably has something to do with better intruction code or something. Yes, I know...Intel currently owns like 90% of the CPU market, but will that be the case in the future?

[photomark]

Brian et al.

 

Jay brings up some interesting thoughts concerning copyright and the terms of use, both

of which, while reasonable concerns that I agree with in spirit, seem amply covered in the

TOS photo.net has instituted. If I were you and photo.net's lawyer, however, I would be

much more concerned with the issues of appropriating someone's post, name, and

reputation for commercial purposes without the knowledge or consent of the member. (for

the curious:google "appropriation tort") Adding a link to someone's post for advertising

purposes is not much different than using someone's name or photo to advertise a

product. As we all know from the countless 'I am not a lawyer' posts in the business

section of the forum this kind of commercial use requires a release. While you might think

double green underlines are clear, I think a reasonable person reading a post and

following a link in that post will assume the author of the post put it there which implies

an endorsement. If this is true it is quite clearly appropriation of the person's name.

 

As a professional photographer, I've always felt good about posting to the forums when I

could help someone else out with a problem, and I suspect I won't be alone when I say this

is my last post to photo.net's fora while this advertising scheme is in effect. Good luck. It's

been fun.

[Brad_]

There seems to be one very unhappy person here who has not even bothered to subscribe.

Rather than cater to his demands and threats, which have unfortunately been delivered in

such an obnoxious manor, perhaps he'd be much happier if all of his posts were deleted and

is then shown the door.

[root]

Brad, you're implying that the complaints are his alone, ignoring the posts by others that share his concerns. How many posts do you need to read to be convinced that the argument stands on its' own merits?

 

I agree with you and Ben about paying your fair share. I also would point out to Jay that while it is true that "expert" - or at least well thought out - posts add value to the site, they still don't pay the bills. Jay, I've tried to make that case for offering critiques, so I understand your position, but the bottom line is still dollars. You can go elsewhere if you like, but I guarantee that you'll pay to participate.

[Brad_]

<I >Brad, you're implying that the complaints are his alone,..</I><P>

 

Didn't mean to imply that Carl. What's astonishing and offensive is his very public bull-in-a-

china-shop attitude demanding this and that rather than trying to resolve the issue in a

rational manor, perhaps even working with pn principals directly. Who needs the attitude?

Frankly, I don't see any special value - but of course that's subjective.

[tholte]

Brad, I hear you loud and clear. It kills me to see all these whiners and complainers and most of them don't even post any photos. Put the "photo" in photo.net and takes some pictures (captures, images, photos, whatever).

[kelly_flanigan1]

I get on Photo.net sometimes; and have never seen this stuff. Is it my dial up? 200Mhz Pentium Pro? or Mozilla? :)

[kelly_flanigan1]

When I was a kid whining was considered kid stuff. Today adults whine.

[peter_evans4]

<p>On attempting to follow the approved way to opt out:</p><blockquote><p><em>Following the "What's this" link in the pop up box takes you to a web page that takes you to an e-mail form that requests name, phone, e-mail, etc. I didn't have the heart to follow that one. Enough people know enough about me. Funny how it always requires much of my personal information to get removed from someones list.</em></p></blockquote><p>This is remarkably similar to much spam, which ends with an offer to let you drop out of the spamlist if you merely reply, or access a certain page. Only the most gullible people believe these offers, and only the most optimistic spammer expects that anyone would provide name, phone number, etc.</p><p>Assuming that you are authorized to install and configure software on "your" computer, it's pretty easy to avoid PN's commercial excrescences. Even if you're not authorized to do this, all is not lost: recently I used institutional computers for a year and had the bright idea of installing an alternative browser on my "virtual drive". It worked fine. I then reread the rules, which told me that any unauthorized installation of software would land me in very deep doodoo. So I decided to fess up. The first person I spoke to didn't understand/believe what I said; the second immediately understood, came close to complimenting me on my (minimal) ingenuity, and said that all they were worried about was the distribution of "warez", etc. So even if you're using a corporate computer, don't be timid!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

What a tempest in a toilet bowl.

 

I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone was fooled by those auto-generated links, or to worry that someone else might think that you'd inserted them into your own posts. But I suppose that since there's a newbie to the web born every minute there are 1,440 additional rookies a day who've never seen a mouseover before. It's also possible that thousands of people think we have nothing better to do with our time than create links hyping our personal favorite web stores to every mention of words like "camera" and "flash."

 

It would be kinda comically appropriate to auto-link the words "dense" and "negative" to certain photo.netters. (However I'll resist the urge to do so here.)

 

Makes me wonder, tho', whether intellitxt is generating links to ebay sales of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" every time someone on the web talks about going to get some hot coffee now.

[mottershead]

Peter, I was mistaken about where the opt-out link is. I have it and am supposed to make it available on the site.

[jreades]

It seems that we've reverted to using 'intelli-text' in the articles section but not in the forums.

 

Bravo! This seems like an excellent compromise to me since it preserves the integrity of a user's postings (except in the articles section where the relationship can be made much more clear) while maximising the ad revenue for photo.net.

 

I'm also somewhat amused that we are supposed to stand and salute those who participate as experts on photo.net but who refuse to contribute financially on the basis that their contributions are so valuable that it's beneath them to pay up as a subscriber. I believe that I'll take the same approach with obtaining photographic supplies from now on: "But you should feel so honoured by my patronage of your shop that there shouldn't be any need for me to contribute towards its upkeep!"

 

jon

[mottershead]

It is clear from photo.net's Terms of Use that when people post text on the site, that photo.net may modify or delete their text at its convenience. It did not explicitly state so before but I considered this to include creating hypertext links within that text.

 

Some people in this thread have demanded that they should have total control over the text that they post including over whether any of that text is linked. If they didn't choose to link a word or phrase to something, then they say photo.net should not insert any links. Some are claiming that is a violation of their copyright if we do hyperlink a word or phrase in their text, and that they will sue photo.net for so modifying their posts.

 

Would they feel differently if we had technology for linking keywords within posts to related articles, glossary definitions, and so forth? If I wrote code that automatically linked "Nikon D100" in posts in the Nikon forum to the photo.net article on the camera, or linked technical terms to a Glossary of terms, would people still object? I don't think so: most people would see that as a useful feature, especially if the formatting of the links made it clear that they had been generated by the site and not by the poster.

 

So, why do people object when the links are paid advertising, especially since it is clear from the style of the links that this is what they are. (And if it wasn't clear enough, the box that pops up when users mouse-over the links makes it even more so) I think this is in fact just one more example of the disdain people have for advertising, and that there would be no objection if these links were not paid for by advertisers.

 

The people running photo.net didn't get to dictate the structure of the web economy: if we want the site to survive and grow, we have to finance the site using the means available to us. Nobody is getting rich from publishing the photo.net site. Indeed we have investors who have loaned the site several hundred thousand dollars over the years who are patiently waiting for those loans to be repaid.

 

photo.net receives about 3 million unique visitors per month. If only 1% of those people subscribed to the site, we would not need advertising or advertisers. Unfortunately, the only thing that people seem to disdain more than advertising is the obligation to subscribe to a site which they visit regularly -- an obligation, by the way, which if fulfilled would relieve the site of the need for advertising. So, out of millions of visitors, we have about 3000 subscribers, bless them. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to compute what percentage of the visitors this represents, but if you want an approximation, it approaches 0%.

 

Basically, people want a site that is free and free of advertising; unfortunately, we aren't able to give people what they want. We are compelled to have some advertising on the site, or else close it.

 

The bottom line is that, given the disdain people have for advertising, we will continue to experiment to find the forms of advertising that are the most acceptable to a community that basically considers advertising to be unacceptable.

[laurie_m]

"I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone was fooled by those auto-generated links"

 

Lex, I've been reading the forums for a long time now. I was looking for information on a particular file storage device and found a thread on it. Having never seen these advertising links before, I assumed the poster of the thread inserted a link to informnation on the specific storage device being discussed. So, I clicked on it. I ended up on Dell's site.

 

I must be "dense" :)

[laurie_m]

Brian, I think most of us understand the need for advertising dollars. Speaking only for myself, what irked me was that the links were inserted without any prior announcement. Now that I know what they look like and can avoid clicking on them, they're slightly less objectionable. I know this has been mentioned before but might it have made sense to post an announcement in this forum or at the top of each forum, that these ads would be showing up, what they look like, a brief explanation why they're necessary etc. While I'm certain that would have generated a lot of negative feedback, springing it on the members without prior notification had the same result. Anyway, I'm just speaking for myself. I would have appreciated a "heads up".

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"It is clear from photo.net's Terms of Use that when people post text on the site, that photo.net may modify or delete their text at its convenience. It did not explicitly state so before but I considered this to include creating hypertext links within that text." - Brian</i><P>

 

Brian - *Technically* you may be correct, but 99% of users would likely disagree and interpret that section of the TOU to mean that photo.net may (and rightly so) remove or modify text that is inappropriate, abusive, off topic, factually wrong, etc. Very few would interpret it to mean that photo.net may *add* content to their posting, which is again *technically* what is happening when links to "sponsors" are auto-inserted into a post. If one is to be perverse and follow your logic, then if a member made a post such as <i>"... a good entry level DSLR is the Nikon D70"</i> anyone with admin privileges could change that by *adding* text to read <i>"... a good entry level DSLR is the Nikon D70 - Abe's of Maine has a good deal on right now".</i> (Abe's of Maine hot linked of course). Now I am not suggesting that this would ever happen, but you can see what a slippery slope you have started down. BTW, one of these sponsored links is a price comparison website. Guess who shows up in the top 5 "recommended" sites when you click on many of the "compare price" links? Abe's of Maine, along with all of their phony feedback (I know you have ZERO control of this, but it perversely amusing).<P>

 

I also think that 99% of users would likely agree that there is nothing wrong with an auto-hyperlink to another section of photo.net with *editorial* content related to the post, since it is information (and not a come-on to buy something) that many would find very useful. That is an entirely different context from a sponsored hyperlink, which IMO is not too many degrees away from spam. But that's only my opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours.<P>

 

I do think the shouting about copyright violation was an over-reaction. And no one should expect to have total control over what they post in a public forum on a <U>privately owned</U> website. But they should have reasonable control and I think you have discovered that many found this to be unreasonable (especially since it was added without prior notice - again JMHO).<P>

 

I also realize that photo.net cannot survive without advertising, and that you need to try different schemes. I haven't the slightest idea what it costs to run this site, but I can appreciate that it is a rather large sum of money and that the revenue from subscriber fees is (and always will be) a paltry amount of the total funds required. Even as a subscriber I have no objections to advertisements within the forums. As long as it is not overwhelming (banner ads on top that fill half the screen) or annoying (pop-ups) then most reasonable people should not object. I don't even have a problem with sponsored links, but run them down the right side of the page instead of polluting others contributions.<P>

I also appreciate what a thankless task you have. No matter what you do someone is going to be pissed. Witness the pointless banter about "ratings this" and "ratings that" (usually from non-subscribers). You simply can't win. :-(<P>

Thanks for your tireless work. Despite the occasional bickering, there have been many improvements here recently, which hasn't gone unnoticed.

[jnicholson]

Hi Brian, I support the need for PN to generate advertising revenue. I have stated so in this forum before. As such, I agree with much of what you say just above. However, the problem with your argument about links to useful information is that the subject links, for the most part, aren't to useful information. They are links that direct you to an organization selling something. The links seem to imply that the author of the post in some way endorses the linked-to product. I know that the terms of use allow you to change the content of posts but I find these links to show very little respect for your users. Sorry, this one I can't support.

 

Regarding the issue of too few actual subscribers. I agree with this wholeheartedly. For me, it's just about the best $25 I can spend each year. But, PN must address the issue of international fund transfers. I know you've seen the many posts about not being able to "pay up" when overseas. Once this is fixed, PN can push harder to get people to subscribe. Of course, I understand that push would be somewhat tempered by the advertising revenue generated by the millions of non-subscribers.

 

Just my thoughts and with respect...

[root]

Brian, the statistics you offer seem misleading to me. All of us visit countless sites in search of the answer to a question or just to satisfy our curiosity. My obligation to those sites, and the cost o them that I represent, is virtually zero. You refer to photographers who decide that this site is worth visiting on a regular basis for a prolonged period of time, yet I don't recall ever seeing any statistics that compare that number to the number of regulars who contribute.

 

Given that the other similar sites that I'm aware of have gone to a brief trial period before they're required to pay, isn't that the group we should be looking at, rather than the number of unique, mostly short term, visitors?

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Brian Mottershead, aug 02, 2005; 11:19 a.m.</B>

<br>

It is clear from photo.net's Terms of Use that when people post text on the site, that photo.net may modify or delete their text at its convenience. It did not explicitly state so before but I considered this to include creating hypertext links within that text.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

The context in which that proviso was couched ("we reserve the right ... to delete, move, or edit any postings that come to our attention that we consider unacceptable or inappropriate") rather strongly implies that the point and purpose of any such modifications or deletions would be to control abuse, spam, vulgarity, etc., much as I previously mentioned.  The "...of for any other other reasons, which we need not disclose, and which need not be reasonable..." part which follows is obviously standard-issue (if badly written) lawyer-ese CYA boilerplate; and I fully expect that *most* people (including the all-important "reasonable man") would dismiss it as such, NOT presume that you "really meant" something else entirely, completely outside the bounds established by the context of the statement.  The fact that the CYA boilerplate is there probably (slightly) protects you from a damages award; but it does not give you carte blanche to permit third-party commercial use of other folks' works, especially without compensation, notice, or explicit permission.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Some people in this thread have demanded that they should have total control over the text that they post including over whether any of that text is linked. If they didn't choose to link a word or phrase to something, then they say photo.net should not insert any links. Some are claiming that is a violation of their copyright if we do hyperlink a word or phrase in their text, and that they will sue photo.net for so modifying their posts.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Copyright is only one issue.  As "Mark M" pointed out earlier, the other big issue is the misappropriation of another's name and/or persona, particularly for commercial gain.  In this case, the two are related; and while it is the latter which forms the fundamental objection (i.e., the "Abe's of Maine" scenario), it is the former which provides the more easily understood -- especially, I would think, in this venue -- legal hook to hang it on.

<br>

<br>

From the copyright POV, there is nothing really different about this "robo-linking" scheme than suddenly deciding to sell off the members' uploaded images for use in third-party advertisements.  Surely you understand that would be an absolute non-starter, right?

<br>

<br>

From the misappropriation POV, the analogy would be to not only selling off the image, but having the (third-party) advertiser subsequently claim "John Q. Doe took this picture with a Frammistat Optonar 5000 digicam, and therefore recommends it highly!"  Surely it is just as obvious that this too is completely unacceptable.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Would they feel differently if we had technology for linking keywords within posts to related articles, glossary definitions, and so forth? If I wrote code that automatically linked "Nikon D100" in posts in the Nikon forum to the photo.net article on the camera, or linked technical terms to a Glossary of terms, would people still object?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Speaking for myself...  I would still dislike it; but my objection would not be nearly as strong.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

So, why do people object when the links are paid advertising, especially since it is clear from the style of the links that this is what they are.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

One of the saddest and most discouraging aspects of this entire boondoggle is that you still find it necessary to even ask that question.  Did you understand NOTHING that I and dozens of others have been trying to explain to you?

<br>

<br>

And for the record, NO it is/was *NOT* anywhere near sufficiently "clear from the style of the links that this is what they are" to obviate this problem.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

The people running photo.net didn't get to dictate the structure of the web economy: if we want the site to survive and grow, we have to finance the site using the means available to us.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

And if you cannot do that without resorting to sleazy, unethical and legally questionable-at-least tactics like this "robo-linking" scheme, then the ONLY alternative is to shut down PhotoNet.  Obviously, that would be very unfortunate; but it's certainly more acceptable than stealing the users' identities.  The economic unviability of an enterprise is *never* an excuse to engage in unethical behavior (cf. Enron, WorldCom, et al).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Basically, people want a site that is free and free of advertising; unfortunately, we aren't able to give people what they want. We are compelled to have some advertising on the site, or else close it.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

AFAIK anyway, no one is objecting to having "some advertising on the site"; and it is highly disingenuous of you to even imply that.  That is *NOT* what this is about.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

The bottom line is that, given the disdain people have for advertising, we will continue to experiment to find the forms of advertising that are the most acceptable to a community that basically considers advertising to be unacceptable.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

So, do I take it from this that you have *permanently* disabled the "robo-linking" scheme, at least within the Forums, and that you will not be re-instituting it?  Your silence on that obvious question has so far been deafening.

<br>

<br>

[bens]

Jay, can we assume your 25 dollars is on the way?

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Ben S, aug 02, 2005; 01:48 p.m.</B>

<br>

Jay, can we assume your 25 dollars is on the way?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Actually, no, you cannot (safely) assume that.

<br>

<br>

I have not yet decided whether or not I will continue to participate in PhotoNet.  Pending that decision, I have limited myself to this thread (and, possibly, others related to it) until such time as Brian states unequivocally that the robo-linking scheme is a thing of the past, and that he understands *why* that must be so.

<br>

<br>

If/when all that is resolved, I'll then look at the idea of contributing to PhotoNet in cash form as a separate decision.

<br>

<br>

[bens]

Brian, I see now that the terms of use explicitedly call out that postings can be modified to include hyperlinks. This is problematic in many ways. For example, the years of postings made previous to this this term of use provision would arguably not be subject to this call out. But more importantly, you are contemplating a fundamental revision to one of the core strengths of this site. I know platitudes for your work cannot solve the issues you are confronted with regarding site funding, and so I will not offer them. Instead, I encourage you to see past your disappointment with the reaction to this experiment and understand that many of us are making efforts to support the site, including stifling our dislike of the amount of advertising, but consider this hyperlinking to be a fundamentally different beast. This is a uniquely interactive site; to enlist our own words in the cause of advertising revenues -- well, can you point to another site that does this to its subscribers' works?

 

As I've mentioned, I encourage you to attempt some other fundraising suggestions regarding subscriptions, as the site's "honor system" is an awfully passive collection method:

 

1. 2X a year subscription drives.

2. A sliding scale of recommended subscription fees based on income.

3. Separate fundraising drives for specific purposes.

4. If possible, automatic periodic funding collection (like my YMCA, which gets its monthly fee automatically).

5. Solving the subscription problem worldwide.

6. Special icons for major funders.

 

I know you are a private business, and this follows more of the non-profit model. Taking these steps may also require sharing more financial information than you do presently. But don't you think its worth trying in light of the alternatives? The most that occurs is some experimentation and effort that yields disappointing results.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>I see now that the terms of use explicitedly call out that postings can be modified to include hyperlinks. This is problematic in many ways.</i><P>

And very troubling as well (changing TOU *after* the fact). A very slippery slope indeed.

[mottershead]

Jay, I don't find your arguments persuasive. Your argument rests on the assertion that linking words in a post implies an endorsement of the links by the writer. That assertion is not obviously true, and your misplaced moral outrage starts from this assumption, which is debatable. Perhaps you have found in the past that yelling and shouting and adoping a posture of moral outrage prevents people from examining or challenging your assumptions, but I'm afraid that doesn't cut any mustard with me at all.

 

 

Does anyone assume that the writers on a web site have anything to do with the many links, advertising and otherwise, that appear on the site, and that the posters are responsible for the advertising and endorse all of it? If I stick an ad near to a post, does anyone suppose that this implies an endorsement by the writer? If I link a word in the heading or title of a thread does that imply an endorsement by the writer? These "implied endorsements" that you assert could be used to disqualify any advertising in the forums at all. What it comes down to is that you don't like advertising.

 

If it is disclosed to readers that links in posts are generated by the site, that the site-generated links are distinctively styled from any links in the posts that were placed there by the poster (assuming posters are allowed to create links), I do not see an issue, even if some of the links are paid advertising links. If some of the advertising links lead to Abe's of Maine, etc, then that is more embarassing for the site than if they all go to Adorama, or B&H, etc, but that is true of any advertising links on the site, and one would want to avoid having advertisers on the site like Abe's of Maine.

 

All this does not mean that other objections to these links are not possible. One might argue that the auto-generated links will be less relevant, and may tend to make all links less valuable, or that they are annoying and distracting. One could argue that there should be a clear separation between editorial content and advertising and that these auto-generated links blur that distinction. Certainly such a distinction is the norm in newspapers and many magazines, but I am not sure the same is true on web sites, where paid advertising links within text are quite common. Anyway, nobody seems to be making that argument with respect to the IntelliTXT links in the articles, where such an editorial separation would seem to be just as important as in forum posts.

 

In summary, your moral outrage and rhetoric does not substitute for reason or argument, and while you might hope that this outrage will sweep aside any questioning of your assumptions, it hasn't worked with me.