wade_rose Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 was wondering why non members do not need to join. I think that if your a non member you can open different accounts and rate 3/3 ratings or post no pictures or really don't care about PN .Maybe it mite be better if you give them a 30 day trail they will get the taste of it and If they are real serous about Photography they will join and get addicted like me. Thanks for the reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_dimarzio Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Hi Wade, Brian's explaination went something like this>taffic = advertising revenue. PN can't afford to lose the revenue that non paying hits produce. Some non members contribute nicely to the board also, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Besides - some people get so pure after spending all their money on expensive equipment that no money is left to pay PN to show them how to use the new toys ^^. Seriously I think I is great to have a certain degree of generosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Looks like PN is the only one to allow unlimited free access...<br>I was happy to use it freely, I'm even more happy to use it as a paying member (thanks to the friendly gift to another member). I think that I'll suscribe again each year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 One more thing it would keep Members and there friends from opening another account and do rating on there own pictures and others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_dimarzio Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 While you guys are here, would you mind stoping over at my "Crappy Pics" portfolio and drop off some 1s and 2s? I'll nver make it to the top on ratings, hoping to get there on views...Also, I have a special going on right now, receive 10 bucks (or a roll of expired Tech Pan) if you mark me as interseting :) Wade, have fun, enjoy PN if you pay or if you don't, it's up to you to support the site. I think I'll take advantage of the Flower deal and send Lex the Perpendiculity Consultant some roses. (I never could remember how to spell perpendiculty, I don't want to abbreviate it Lex the Perp...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Wade, do you know something we don't? There are a lot of people on this site that do really contribute a lot in terms of knowledge that really out weighs $25. Yes, I have seen some bogus accounts but I wouldn't want to force everyone to pay $25 just because of a few bad seeds. If you know of any bogus accounts I would just report it to abuse @ photo . net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 1....I don't rate pics, I think the whole practice is useless when you consider all the back slapping that goes on. Now if photo net hired professional critiquers who had no ties to the people on photo net, that would be different, but that ain't gonna happen. 2....I "post" my pictures on w/nw threads. That's the kind of photography philosophy I care about. FUN! 3....I don't pay for membership, and I am addicted. 4....the internet started out by being a free endeavor, an exhange of information between like minded individuals. The trend towards HAVING to pay for everything on it is a major step in the wrong direction if you ask me./ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I don't post very many images but if Photo.net were private, those images would be seen be fewer people. In contrast, images on Photosig are only open to public viewing for 72 hours. It would not be worth my $25 dollars or time to post photos there. Unfortunately, negative and malicious behavior would probably exist with or without paid memberships. In general, the internet attracts personality problems that would never be tolerated in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_dimarzio Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Thomas, when was the last time you priced a Netra 1280? Think you you afford a few STM/OC-3s running into your home? PN isn't hosted by some old beater ITT 80286 PCs with a 56k modem. The hardare requirements are pretty large. PN had an E450 that died, years ago that was a huge invenstment, today it's a nice coffee table (if the wheels are still attached). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 "...the internet attracts personality problems that would never be tolerated in real life..." although I know what you mean....you must lead a somewhat sheltered life.....pnet is civil compared to some of the people I meet in real life. I think the difference really is, in physical life (it ALL real life, actually) you can choose where you live and where you go.......on the internet it comes to you whether you want it to or not. But it is still there in physical life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 michael............never. but, it still is the wrong direction. get more companies to sponsor the site. They make the real profits in all this anyhow when we all buy camera equipment. epson (printers) owes you guys about a billion dollors in free advertising from what I've seen on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I would rather pay $25 than put up with a bunch of banner ads and popups. The fact is there's no free lunch. As Michael pointed out, it probably costs a pretty penny to run this site. I'm more than happy to fork over $25 for what I get in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_dimarzio Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Hi Thomas, I agree with you in principle, but...I like PN much better when I log in and don't get hit with the advertisements. Same as cable TV, I'm paying for television, not what brand of feminine products I should be buying. This is the premier photo site, the staff and it's members (paying and non paying) make it that way. But remember, the Arpanet and then the internet was funded by the DoD and universities, these days I would hate to see coprorate sponsorship (read control) keep the internet "free". With regards~md Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Sponsor....to me that means add their companies name to a list of sponsors that show up on the home page............the advertising for their company is already their in the posts that people put up luading their product. Maybe let their sponsorship listing link to all the epson related threads on photo net....like a premade search. It don't have to be banner ads. a new approach to the whole thing. there has to be better ways than bugging people for $25 a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 ...and if they want to add their own control to it.........tell them NO...........you are the premiere photo site after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dillan k Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I look at my subscription here as a replacement for a magazine subscription. There's way more content here, and it's relatively cheap too! For me, it's well worth the price. Why <i>wouldn't</i> I support a site that I use this much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I don't think there are very many people whose contributions would amount to $25 per year if we were paying for their contributions what they generate in revenue. At the rate we get for advertising, and after allowing for the costs of storing and serving the "contributions" , it would take a few hundred thousand page views on someone's contributions to come up to $25.00. Actually, even more views would be required if the contribution is a photo portfolio, since the advertising rates we get on photo pages are really low, like pennies per thousand impressions. Contributions in the forums, or a popular article in the Equipment section, are worth more in advertising revenue, but even those don't add up to much financially, except maybe for some of Bob Atkins equipment reviews, for which we pay him. There are actually only a couple of dozen members who reach enough page impressions on their photos and portfolios to equal a subscription fee. Funny thing is, almost all of those people are already subscribers. The vast majority of people are just rationalizing when they claim their contributions equate to a subscription fee in terms of advertising revenue being generated. The main reason that we don't force people to subscribe is to give them a Trial period. I don't think many people would subscribe without experiencing some participation on the site. And it is hard to set a fixed time by which people should decide whether or not to subscribe. Some sites set a fixed time, like 7 days, or 30 days. I think photo.net is more of a site which grows on you slowly. Also, we feel it is important to make exceptions for people who aren't able to afford a subscription, like students or people from countries where US$25.00 is a lot of money. And there are some people for whom it is logistically difficult to pay, especially from certain countries where their credit cards aren't accepted by our bank. For this reason, we leave it open-ended and on the honor system. The advertising pays for the Trial/Guest members as well as all the people who just come in once or twice to read a forum thread or an article and never register as members. Unfortunately, our system does leave the door open for freeloaders to dodge paying and remain in the Trial/Guest status indefinitely, despite being pretty active on the site. Then there are people who are honorable, in principle, but never seem to get around to paying. I think procrastination is a bigger reason for not subscribing than deliberate freeloading, although procrastination over a long period of time is basically indistinguishable from freeloading. The freeloaders and procrastinators not only don't pay, but they also give some people a pretext for not subscribing. Why should they bother paying when they don't have to, and the site doesn't seem to do anything to stop freeloading, they ask. Finally, there are people who seem to think that they shouldn't subscribe until everything is exactly to their liking -- even though the various warts they find are apparently not impediments to their prolonged and intensive participation. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone had written in this forum that they won't subscribe until such-and-such feature is implemented or changed. Oh, well. In the end, we have enough money to run the site, more or less. Nobody is really trying to get rich from operating the site, so I guess our "business model" works out in the end. It would be nice if we didn't have to have so much advertising, though. And it wouldn't be bad if maybe we could bring on another person to look after the site so that we could take more than a few days of vacation at one time, and not have to carry a pager all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl_price Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I do believe that if all of the non paying members became paying members......the site wouldn't need that advertising revenue. If you look at the percentages you gave but then weighed them against the ratio of Paying to non Paying members you'd see that on a per member basis, the paying members support the site more than the non Paying. But this has been stated before and it doesn't avoid these kinds of discussions so carry on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 "E Welthorpe," that's a fascinating observation...and very interesting considering the keyboard it came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I try and ignore ratings, they do not have much impact on what I am doing. One thing that I do see is some professional trolls (usually unpaid) coasting along in the forum and critique threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Latest troll siteing http://www.photo.net/photo/4415701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_adams13 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Latest troll SIGHTING http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1848345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 The saga continues. This is actually very entertaining, not to mention an education on our founding forefathers. Very respectfully, Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_adams13 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Everyone can be a revolutionary. All you have to do is stand up for what you believe in. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." Dolores Ibarruri BTW...latest obsessive compulsive disorder sighting http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1848345 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