How else can we learn?

[todd frederick]

I just read an entry that goes back to September 1998 "don't be rude." I have been into serious photography since 1958, and I learn new things every day. I am eager to hear other people's ideas and I would like them to consider my questions, no matter how "neurotic" or "stupid" they may sound. A few days ago I asked what I thought was a very legitimate question on photo.net Q&A Forum, I made an error in procedures, and, evidently, asked a question which did not meet with Mr. Phillip G's approval of what he considers to be legitimate questions (mind reading anyone?). My question was deleted for being "off topic," "Irrelevant," self-answering," and "stupid." At any rate, I went around with him for a few e-mail excahnges until I realized I did not want to be called "neurotic" or "stupid" any more!

 

<p>

 

My question is, who is this guy and what give him the right to proclaim himself "photo god" of the internet? Is it a PhD, personal wealth, or what?

 

<p>

 

I previously respected that web site and learned much from the exchanges, but now question its openness, flexibility, and respect for diversity of photographic interests, not to mention respect for differences in levels of photographic knowledge.

 

<p>

 

People can legitimately stray from stated policy, and, to my mind, should be gently guided back without being called names. My profession is elementary education, and we try to eliminate name calling by 4th grade! I guess some people are slow learners, or, simply, just mean. Does anyone have any advice regarding how to communicate within photo.net without being the target of ridicule?

 

<p>

 

Todd Frederick

[hector_javkin]

> My question is, who is this guy and what give him the right to

> proclaim himself "photo god" of the internet? Is it a PhD,

> personal wealth, or what?

 

<p>

 

Phil Greenspun owns the site. He runs it, maintains it, pays for the

costs, receives its benefits, and edits it, which includes deleting

questions which he decides to delete. We are his guests. Writing to

this site is similar to writing to a magazine, in that the editor can

choose to publish your letter or not. Although I don't know him, I am

sorry that he called you names.

[todd frederick]

Hektor,

 

<p>

 

Thank you for your resonse. Your answer is correct and what I

expected..."he who owns the football controls the game!" I just find

narrowmindedness and intolerance of diverse opinion very sad,

especially in such an otherwise fine site as photo.net. Also, if I

disagree with a "guest" in my house, I try to open discussion, rather

than closing it through insult and name calling, and "deleting" my

guest's welcome.

 

<p>

 

Todd

[peter_foiles]

It would be worth your while to dig around Philip's site and read

many of the non-photo writings he has posted. His "Travels with

Samantha" would be a good start. He is an extremely bright and

complex individual based on what I have read. He is more "prickly" to

deal with on occasion than I would like but don't be so quick to

judge until you have dug deeper.

[a._novisto]

"My question is, who is this guy and what give him the right to

proclaim himself "photo god" of the internet? Is it a PhD, personal

wealth, or what?"

 

<p>

 

Is that not name calling? Is retaliation by using name calling a good

and intelligent response? BTW: I never read that Phil proclaim that he

is a photo-God. Maybe you can point me to the site that says so?

[hoyin_lee1]

I can fully understand Todd's anger, for I had experienced similar

treatment when I posted a question that fell short of photo.net's

forum requirement. Although I was spared of any nasty names, the

tone of delete notice was downright discourteous. However, I have no

problem with that since it's equally understandable that Philip and

his team of moderators can be a little short tempered when they're

providing a useful free service out of their own time and money, and

have the daunting task of maintain a forum accessed by hundreds, if

not thousands, of internet users everyday to their editorial

standards. I think it is only fair that any public objections and

criticisms should be directed at the forum policy and not levelled at

Philip himself. Photography should be fun; there's no need to get

into web-rage.

[todd frederick]

Response From Todd:

 

<p>

 

You might say my use of "photo god" is also name calling, but I

intentionally put that in quotation marks, did not say that this IS

what he was, and couched it in the form of a question.

 

<p>

 

This is what happened: I asked a question on photo.net. The question

was not place on the "new questions" board, but was put on the "Older

questions" board under a category. I wanted it on the new board, so

I wrote it again changing the category. Well, Mr. Greenspun didn't

like the question and he didn't like me entering it twice and

immediately e-mailed me with a delete notice referring to "spaming"

(I still don't know what that means even though I asked him), and

making reference to me as a "neurotic". I didn't even talk with

him...that was the way he informes all people who break the rules. I

then e-mailed him and asked him with all good intentions and politely

if he would explain what I did wrong, and he personally e-mailed back

referring to my "stupid neurotic" questions and never indicated what

I did wrong or what I should do in the future. Some people just

can't let a day go by without putting someone else down. My question

on this forum is, "Is Mr. Greenspun one of those people or was he

having a bad day?" I think his forum and classifieds are great, I

like his policy of giving personal prints in exchange for charity

contributions, his photos are great, and I enjoy his personal

narratives. His response to my question, the deletion, and his e-

mail attack was a bit of a surprise to say the least. That's all...I

just want to know how to use photo.net in the future without sturring

his fury!

 

<p>

 

Todd

[bobatkins]

As a co-moderator of photo.net I can maybe give a little insight. The

moderators have little time to spend on moderation and less answering

email about it. For the poster, it's one question and one email. For

the moderator it can be many questions and lots of email. I'm sure

Philip gets a LOT more email than I do, and I can't keep up with all

of it. People write to me with all sorts of questions, most of which I

can't answer ("what should I buy") and all of which eat up my time.

This isn't my job, it's supposed to be a hobby! I try to answer the

ones I can. I assume for Philip it's even more time consuming.

 

<p>

 

So...no excuses, but sometimes my comments are short and may seem

rude. It's basically we probably get tired of replying to (what amount

to) the same questions and comments over and over again. To delete a

question is a mouse click. To get into a discussion over it might take

10 minutes. No big deal for one, but multiply that by 25 and see how

much of the day you have left.

 

<p>

 

I think it's pretty obvious from the questions that aren't deleted

that there really isn't a lot of censorship on photo.net. It's not,

and never was intended to be, a clone of the Usenet newsgroups (all

things to all people, covering every aspect of every topic). It's

suppose to be a bit more focused than that. If it fails, it fails by

allowing too much, not by rejecting too much.

[alan_gibson]

>> I...question its openness, flexibility, and respect for diversity

of photographic interests.

 

<p>

 

Remember also that photo.net Q&A has clear objectives, which don't

actually cover openness etc. There are other forums with other

objectives, moderated by other people. If you want, you can even set

up your own forum, with whatever objectives you decide.

 

<p>

 

I would personally prefer photo.net to be more strictly moderated, to

be more 'focused'. However, I now know that this is not as easy as it

sounds, and the moderators of photo.net have my full sympathy for

their difficult self-imposed task.

 

<p>

 

But I suppose I would add that some people could learn a thing or two

about common courtesy.

[sean_hester]

about "This is what happened: I asked a question on photo.net. The

question was not place on the "new questions" board, but was put on

the "Older questions" board under a category. I wanted it on the new

board, so I wrote it again changing the category."

 

<p>

 

here's some technical tips. it's all one "board". (as much as

phillip probably wouldn't want it called that) the "new questions"

are just ones that haven't been catagorized yet. apparently your

question was easy to catagorize so it was (probably by you). i guess

for people too lazy or shortsighted to scroll down a page or two, the

"new questions" are all they see, so being catagorized is a bad thing,

but for the rest of us, catagorization is a good thing. that way i

can ignore all the equipment quesitons if i want to. "new" or

otherwise.

 

<p>

 

since it's all one area (i can't call it a board anymore, it's too

painful) posting it two times is only going to make things worse.

 

<p>

 

all questions that get answered appear in the "new answers" filter.

use it. instead of re-posting the question again and again to put it

at the top of the list.

 

<p>

 

----------

 

<p>

 

about "Does anyone have any advice regarding how to communicate within

photo.net without being the target of ridicule?"

 

<p>

 

sure! all you have to do is ask questions that follows the (admitedly

strict) topic rules. i'vve done it half a dozen times. you

apparently asked an off topic question (probably about equipment) and

those aren't allowed. then you come here (where equipment questions

ARE allowed) and ask ANOTHER OFF TOPIC QUESTION. it is true that the

moderation is less active here, so you're off topic questions last

longer, but you still have yet to post an ON TOPIC question. maybe

you should post your original question to photo.net here??? it would

at least be on topic.

 

<p>

 

what's so hard to understand about off-topic? if you're talking

about "bears" in your 4th grade class today and one of your 4th

graders asks a question about the politics of the late 18th century

are you going to discuss it? i doubt it. it's not a 4th grade

topic., and it's definately not about today's topic of "bears". you

might guide him to some other sources of information (which is what

photo.net sometimes does) but you probably won't take class time to

discuss it. what if he askes it again? and again? and again? (it

is a valid and compelling question afterall) then asks why you refuse

to answer his question? then argues with your answer about why you

don't answer his question? then goes next door to some other

unsuspecting classroom and whines to them about how his teacher won't

answer his question? you'll eventually have had enough of it.

 

<p>

 

if the people at photo.net won't answer your question, ask it

somewhere else.

 

<p>

 

photo.net is much more like college level schooling, rather then

grade/public schooling. each class has a very strictly defined topic

and a very smart, very busy, very impatient teacher trying to teach

it. they'd probably much rather be doing whatever activity they're

teaching, but they're taking time out of their day to teach you. at

least you could stick to the topic they came to discuss. there's no

time for off-topic discussions. it makes so mcuh sense to me.

 

<p>

 

--------

 

<p>

 

P.S. "spam" is unwanted e-mail. "spamming" is the repeated sending

of "spam". apparently phillip figured (sarcastically) that since you

sent the same (unwanted) message two times you were "spamming"

photo.net.

[brad_hutcheson]

First, I would like to thank Bob Atkins for contributing to this

thread. This little forum has gone haywire from time to time, but I

have no doubt that a busy day as moderator here is better than a slow

day of moderating photo.net. If I wanted to run this forum as

tightly as photo.net, I could. I mainly try to moderate out insults

and other threads/posts that seem to be too far off topic to have any

value here. I listed the rules for the forum when I created it, and

as long as people who use it act like adults and don't stray too far

from them I try not to be too heavy handed. Sometimes I am too lazy,

and other times too busy to not be a little relaxed compared to

photo.net.

 

<p>

 

Some remarks were made by the original poster about his question

being put into the old threads area of photo.net. Bob can correct me

if I am wrong, but regardless of categorization, this only happens

when the question has been on the new list for a set amount of time

(7 days here, not sure about photo.net). If you found it in one of

the other categories, it was either old enough to just be there, or

it was still in the new questions list as well. Questions will show

up both places immediately. If you ask a question in any forum and

it vanishes, that is a hint that it is not welcome there. I doesn't

matter what your opinion of the situation is, it is up to the

moderators of that forum. That is the whole idea of a moderated

forum, and it is also one of the reasons why Philip provides not only

free server space, but also software preinstalled on that server for

people to start their own forums.

 

<p>

 

By the way Todd, you haven't told us either here or in our email

exchange, what your original question was, or whether you ever got

any answers to it. If it is about equipment, it will probably be

welcome in this forum, and if it isn't, those of us who have

responded to you would like to know, since I have decided to let this

off topic thread remain. It may even help us shed some light on the

situation in general.

[todd frederick]

Response to Brad:

 

<p>

 

I am responding to Brad's request stated above to shed some light on

my original question to Q&A that was deleted, and why I started this

exchange of opinion on this site and photo.net.

 

<p>

 

First, I am not a new photographer. I am a new net user. That's the

problem. I've probably been doing photography longer than many of

you have been alive...although I'm not quite that old! I just don't

always understand all of the web protocols. That becomes a problem,

but I'm sure I'm not alone. New web users make honest mistakes.

 

<p>

 

Second, the question I asked did not regard equipment as such, but

was a question regarding info Oly Epic focus problems. I wanted

advice on what I was to avoid to insure good focus, based on what I

had read from others. I have used cameras from 4X5 to my present M6,

but point and shoots are sometimes beyond me due to lack of

controls. I sincerely sought suggestions on the use of this nice

little camera, but, perhaps, it was not phrased to Mr. G's liking.

 

<p>

 

Third, and this has been misunderstood by responses regarding this on

both sites, I am NOT angry about being deleted. I am hurt by Mr. G's

insults when I asked how I could learn to provide questions that were

acceptable. He called me "neurotic" (seems to be a favorite, though

psychologically outdated, term he like to use) and "stupid". That is

hurtful and does not promote learning.

 

<p>

 

Fourth, I realize that my question to this site was not on topic,

intentionally, but had to be asked: "how do we learn..." if the

moderators do not help us or are so arrogant toward us that all we

warrant are insults.

 

<p>

 

I appreciate you keeping this on the site...evidently my inquiry has

aroused considerable interest, and I can only hope that some changes

may result which will help newcomers to photo.net learn better how to

use the system.

 

<p>

 

Respectfully,

 

<p>

 

Todd Frederick

[chris_hawkins]

Good ways not to get slammed are to 1) insert evidence into your

post that you have performed a photo.net search, 2) carefully word

your question being sure to state the photographic objective 3)avoid

like the plague any question asking which is the "best" film, paper,

chemical, lens or body.

 

<p>

 

I've been whacked by Bob and Phil and I didn't like it either. I got

over it and have continued to learn from photo.net. They can be

prickily cusses, but hey, they admit it and don't claim to be perfect.

 

<p>

 

There is an old quote about not judging someone until you have walked

in their moccasins for two moons. We should all try to keep this is

mind.

[bobatkins]

Well, it may be of interest to know that I've even gone so far as

to delete my own questions, when, on reflection, I thought they didn't

belong on photo.net or I found my answer by doing a bit of work on my

own with a web search engine! You can't get much stricter than that.

[bliorg]

Doubt I'll contribute too much new to this, but I'll try to

re-emphasize some points:

 

<p>

 

- These (photo.net and all it's little children)are NOT public forums

- they're a privately-owned, publicly-accessible database. We ARE

guests here; I think that too many people are too used to Usenet and

it's air of anarchy that, when confronted with a more 'refined' forum,

they either don't notice or expect that Usenet etiquette applies.

 

<p>

 

- The moderators of these sites ARE heavily

over-worked/under-appreciated for the work they contribute (I doubt

many of us understand the volume of hits and email these sites

generate in a day's time).

 

<p>

 

- Contributors to these sites simultaneously have the capacity to be

extremely forgiving and extremely crass. They get tired of hearing

some questions over and over, and trip sometimes. I agree that,

ideally, everyone'd treat each other with a measure of respect, or at

the least, consideration. That doesn't always happen (if you think

there's a little good in everybody, you haven't met everybody). I DO

think that there are days when some contributors (including myself)

should turn their computers off and go back to bed. If I notice

someone asking a question that's been covered many times, or who may

not be aware of typical procedure, and if I have the time, I'll try to

give them some direction, either through posting or private email.

Might be nicer for newcomers if everyone did that.

 

<p>

 

- Photo.net et al require some experience. It took me a while in

lurking before I felt confident enough to post anything (though,

that's my nature - others jump right in). I personally think that

there's often a need for additional functionality in this system, but

as PG is the one doing the work (which I haven't put the effort in to

learn), and as he's doing this for HIS reasons and not mine, I don't

generally tax him further with my input. I haven't looked for any

sort of FAQ list, but if there isn't one, maybe one of us who feels

comfortable in the goings-on here should take the time to contribute

one to the static content.

 

<p>

 

It's a great place to learn; it (unfortunately) requires occassionally

thick skin. I think receiving a barrage of terse commentary in our

inbox is a sort-of rite of passage here...

[marcus_erne]

Response to Todd:

 

<p>

 

"How ... can we learn???"

 

<p>

 

Well, as always in life by exploring the limits=rules. As a newbee I

was so exited about the discovery of photo.net that I blasted out my

question without noticing the rules.

 

<p>

 

Response: ...Your thread has been deleted. This has been discussed

over and over. Search the archives.

 

<p>

 

That was it. So I surfed photo.net up and down, back and forth for a

while before I placed my next question. This time it was a success. I

can unserstand that a moderator gets sick to reply for the 3456th

time that a $ 100 zoom can't be better than a $ 1000 manufactures

lens and gets upset. But especially a educational instructor (or

professor) shouldn't be carried away! That's not good.

 

<p>

 

I, for my part, learned a lot about photography on photo.net. I was

exposed to a whole new world evenso I was into photography for some

time.

 

<p>

 

One thing I've noticed during the 2 years in the photo.net community

though, is that some members are getting too emotional!!! This in a

positive and negative sense. Negative in so far that they use this

relativly "un-personal" electronic medium to "spit-out" verbal waste

not even recognizing that they are hurting "real" people and not an e-

mail with their form of response.

Some seem to be very knowledgeable and artistic in their "written"

appearance, but probably base their knowledge on a couple of books

only. Some truely seem to know the photo stuff, others are seemingly

here because they have nothing else to do. Others even don't bother

with capitals, breaks, grammar etc. while typing. I certainly don't

enjoy that.

 

<p>

 

My granddad always used to say: "Son, there are no stupid questions

in life, only stupid answers !!!"

 

<p>

 

So, next time you boys and you few girls out there think about this

before you write a reply and call somebody names....

 

<p>

 

Now back to asking questions, some of my questions still have been

deleted. Most of them were related to topic which have been beaten to

death in the past. But I (felt I) had asked additional questions.

Sometimes those topics were 2 years old and equipment or features

have been changed or up-graded in the meantime. - Bad luck. I need to

live with it. No hard feelings towards anybody, as long as the tone

stays friendly.

 

<p>

 

Everbody: Thanks for all photo.net sites, I will enjoy them also in

the feature. Just- People, watch your temper, you are not alone in

the world....

[marcus_erne4]

Sorry, for some reason my "old" cookie was still active here is my

real address.