Ability to [ DISAPPROVE ] ?

[mottershead]

Leo, you aren't paying close enough attention. You can still delete and edit your own comments in the Gallery. I fixed that problem within a couple of hours of your mentioning it.

[root]

Thank you for restoring the ability to edit/delete your own comments. I got a prompt deletion by PN abuse on two of the three OT commenters (close enough, I accept the compromise.) I expect that is the route most people will take (Knicki, you should have no problem) so I don't expect this feature will be used very much.

[bdpics]

Thanks Brian for implementing this change!

 

A few months ago, I was "stalked" by another Pnet member who went through my gallery and rated and commented on all of my images (almost all of which have never been submitted for critique), even after I had asked him repeatedly to please stop. Given that my gallery is "my workspace" I have long felt that I should have some say over what comments are left on my images. You guys have enough to worry about without having to deal with moderating the comments in our individual galleries too.

 

Yes, there might be some who will delete any critical comments, but at the end of the day they're really only hurting themselves. Meanwhile, the rest of us can act like adults and only delete those comments that are blatantly rude and/or profane without having to bother the admin.

 

Thanks again!

[orensztajn]

I think is a good idea to just rate a photo in the CR.

But how about the TRP pages?

I mean are we goning to start from zero? Right now we have rate recent sum, average, etc,

So I suposse that only R R Sum will be present?

It will not possible to rate outside the CR so average will not have any meaning, or? Do I am understanding this right?

 

I hope we start from zero....

 

Thanks

/Gustavo

[yann_r.]

Good and interesting debate.

[nicholasprice]

Why does this site exist?

 

Why would we upload our photographs here if we don't want them looked at, or

commented on, or God forbid, rated by the wider community?

 

What are we hoping to achieve?

 

I fear that this site is in danger of becoming a dreary, mutual-admiration society, rather

than an exciting forum for learning and sharing. These new measures are well ment, but

essentially pander to that worst of offenders - the mate-rater, both varieties - subtle and

barefaced!

 

All photographs posted here should automatically be up for critique, and damn the

consequences - what else should this site be for?

 

Lets return the core values of photo.net, before it looses any more credibility!

 

Regards, Nick.

[mottershead]

People upload their photos to photo.net for many different reasons. The original intent of the Gallery was to be a Photo Critique forum, and it was assumed that people were uploading the photos for critique (and rating).

 

However, many people now upload their photos for the purpose of sharing and/or exhibiting them, and they are interested in critiques on only some of them. We don't encourage that in non-subscribers since we have no interest in hosting people's portfolios for free. The bandwidth can get quite expensive. We want to make it possible for non-subscribers to use the Trial/Guest memberships to participate in the Photo Critique forum but we don't want to see them uploading large numbers of photos that are not intended for critique.

 

On the other hand, portfolio hosting is part of what we offer to subscribers, and some of the changes we are planning are to make photo.net better for subscribers as a place to exhibit their work, not necessarily all of which may be uploaded for critique and rating.

[nicholasprice]

Thanks Brian - but you are saying that the intent of this site has indeed changed from its

original core values, or intents? - I find this unsettling, and reiterate that this site should

not

be a mutual appreciation society where people can keep their portfolios clean from

comment,

or "stalking" as one member has even ventured to suggest! - perhaps there should be a

seperate folder available for untouchable portfolios to be stored, this should not be

publically visable- no-one will ever look at them of course, but photographers who want

this fascility could direct their clients or friends there by invitation - everything else should

be up for critique, just like the good old days!

 

When I joined this site in 2001, there was the fascility to "hide" photographs from view -

why not stop all this silly sensorship nonsense, and just bring back this fascility. The

problem is that the prissy types who don't like public comments don't really want this -

what they want is their precious photographs to only be commented upon by their friends

who of course rate most highly, and recieve reciprocation!

 

I say it again, you mean well, but are inadvertantly pandering to the worst excesses of

mate rating!

 

Please rethink this action!

 

Regards, Nick.

[jhenry]

Nicholas,<p>You are really a funny guy!<p> While you protest with energy against something that is just an OPTION, you are already one of the first to use this very option to disapprove and destroy others' comments on your portfolio.<p>LOL!

[mbb]

I think many people have so much obsession with rates, comments, critiques that they really cannot understand somebody who just do not care about it.

 

Yes long time ago this site was able to provide some kind of feedback, but it changed drastically and we all have to accept that fact. From relatively small group of members, who were usually deeply involved in photography, site grown now to be one of the largest on the web. Consequences: ratio of beginners to more advanced changed. What kind of critique beginner is able to offer except: 'WOW' or 'I do not like it'? Both comments are fine and do not qualified to be 'disapproved' but both have little of value. Some people like to exchanges WOWs (or WOWs variations - the most common critiques here) and if that make them happy it is fine with me. But please, stop consider those comments as constructive critiques.

 

Growth brought also a group of the people who for some reasons try to be smart or like to force their opinions and that kind of comments have no place in portfolios if photographer has no intention to be part of those silly exchanges. Moderators often would have to take side and this is not easy for honest person.

 

Make another thing clear, I do not have a single comment (including negatives) left by somebody I want to remove at the present time. But I vote for this option in case I would like to use it in the future.

[mbb]

.......Why would we upload our photographs here if we don't want them looked at, or commented on, or God forbid, rated by the wider community? .........

 

 

I just noticed that comment. Nick, your god is different that mine :).

[bdpics]

It is no small irony that one of the most vocal critics of this change in policy is someone who IMHO frequently abused the image/gallery comments feature!

 

In my case, I confronted a Pnet member for blatently venge-rating another members gallery. This individual then turned his attentions to my gallery, and proceeded to rate and comment on nearly every image I had--even though 80% of them had NOT been submitted for rating or critique.

 

Although I'm sure he thought he was quite clever and subtle, it was more than obvious that the comments and ratings he left in my gallery were NOT intended to help me, but rather to annoy and/or taunt me. After several polite requests to please just leave me alone, this person ratcheted up his attacks by making multiple comments on my images and sending me nasty emails.

 

Sad to say, I know of other Pnet members who have been harassed in the same manner.

 

Rather than wasting the admin's time in dealing with the childish actions of a few, we can now delete these comments ourselves saving the admin time while also sending a message to the "gallery stalkers" that their boorish behavior will no longer get them anywhere.

 

As to the silly idea that this policy change will only help the mate-raters, it simply has no merit because (as Brian said) images not submitted through the RR cue will not receive any ratings at all!

[nicholasprice]

Indeed I was one of the first to notice and try this out Jacques. I was curious to see how this

new (nonsense) feature works - arn't you? I am a great believer in not critisising something

that you cannot understand. If I could undo, the "disapproval" that I did, then I would, but

you would see, had you tried out this function for yourself, that it is irriversible!

 

LOL

 

Nick!

[nicholasprice]

For Bret I have only two words: "yawn, yawn"!

[jhenry]

I see Nicholas, you need to try several time to understand well...:o) <p> MarkB's sentence works perfect for me: <i>"I do not have a single comment (including negatives) left by somebody I want to remove at the present time. But I vote for this option in case I would like to use it in the future."</i>

[nicholasprice]

Jacques - the problem was that when I couldn't restore the comment that I removed, the next

comment in the list didn't make any sence, so I had to remove that too. Has no-one any

deductive reason here?

 

Happy regards, Nick.

[Landrum Kelly]

Although there might be unintended side effects to these changes, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. When one submits a photo for critique, one is saying that one does want critiques. If one does not submit the photo for critique, then there is something else that one wants besides critiques, and one's desire should be respected. No one else's rights are being violated in the least.

 

Marc, you certainly have the right to express yourself on any and all of my photos, but, if a person does not want some person's opinion, including yours or mine, then they do not want that person's opinion. I know that I have had a few trolls who became a real pain.

 

I do not see this as a "business" decision, but as the opportunity to give persons what they want from the site. I will continue to put most of my photos up for critique because I want the opinions of others. The few that I will not put up for critique might, for example, include a good picture of my mother which some idiot decides to deface with banal commentary. I can zap that kind of idiotic defacement of my portfolio.

 

Those who come here for critical commentary are a sub-community at PN, although perhaps the largest sub-community. This change should not change the way we operate. I recognize the right of free expression as very nearly absolute, but I recognize no right to deface those tiny elements of my portfolio which are clearly and distinctly posted for reasons other than critical commentary.

 

The site can still be a learning site for those who, in Marc's words, came here to "learn and to share." The poster owns the photo. He or she should have the right in a given instance to decide what he or she wants from others with regard to that photo.

 

In any case, if there are negative unintended side effects, they can be dealt with. I am sure that Brian reserves the right to change it back if need be, but I do not at the moment see why that need would

ever arise.

 

If someone clearly says that he or she does not want one's commentary, then what makes one think that one has the right to keep blasting them with commentary? This reform to me is a good way to get rid of the occasional harasser who can make the site darned near unbearable at times.

 

The critical function of Photo.net will continue and flourish for those who want it--IN THE CRITIQUE FORUMS, which are designated for that precise purpose.

 

What could be simpler?

 

I have not always been in agreement with Brian on every single decision, but on balance I believe that he has been the man for this era of Photo.net, running from 2002 to the present, just as Phil was the one prior to that. No one is perfect, but these two have done a lot better than I could have done--and that includes the judgment calls, not merely the technical questions, about which I have no expertise.

 

--Lannie

[mottershead]

Thank you, Lannie for those kind words. I agree with you. I doubt very much that I could have started photo.net. It took a Philip Greenspun to do that. But, while I might not be "THE man" (meaning the only person) for the next phase, I think it took someone with a somewhat different approach than Philip for the next phase. Undoubtedly he was technically qualified for this phase, but he's a bit of an uncompromising kind of chap, and I'm not sure he would have made the compromises that were needed for the site to grow and become commercially viable. Even if he had, he might have had to do a lot of "un-Philip-like" things that would have disappointed the fans.

 

In the first phase of the photo.net Gallery, the only people who could post here were those who had scanners. Towards the end of that early phase, the first digital cameras came in, but the ones that were any good were professional tools that were very expensive. I came aboard in 2002 when digital cameras were starting to get good and (relatively) cheap.

 

When the Gallery was started (by Rajeev Surati, not Philip, by the way), there weren't many places on the web where anyone could upload and exhibit photos. Now there are many, many places, and several of them have grown to be bigger and commercially more successful than photo.net -- basically by making it easy for people to upload large numbers of amateur quality images for sharing. In the old days, you pulled out the packet of snaps from the last holiday, family gathering, party, or parade, and bored everyone with them. Now you upload those images to the big photo-sharing sites. This is an improvement because the photographer can suppose he has "shared" the photos, but it is much less boring for everyone because nobody has to look at them, or at least they can do it on their computers and make a couple of polite comments by email. Replacing the ritual of going through the latest packet of snaps is the aim of the big photo-sharing sites.

 

While this has been going on, photo.net has tried to retain its focus on critique and exhibition of high-quality images taken by serious photographers, while coping with a massive increase in the numbers of people with an interest in uploading their images, including a lot of low-quality images. There has always been a preponderance of low-quality images on photo.net, even during the "first phase", by the way, but pulling the good ones out and burying the rest has always been our aim. It is just getting harder because there are a lot more images coming in, and the percentage of low-quality images has increased. Also, as the number of participants has increased, so has the number of crooks and crazies, and more time has to be spent containing them and, despite our continuous efforts, they make their presence felt more than in the past.

 

Besides advertisers, the most reliable sources of revenue for the site are the people who are prepared to pay for photo sharing space. For one thing, this seems to people like something that is worth paying for. Most sites that let you do it ask you to pay, and photo.net is competitive on price and more than makes up for lack of "features" with high visibility, at least for the successful participants. In contrast, most photo.net forum participants are unlikely to subscribe because you just can't convince them that they should have to pay to post in a forum. Either they don't post much, and it isn't reasonable to expect them to pay $25. Or they post a lot and see their posts as so valuable that they think those posts are contribution enough and are affronted by the notion that they should have to pay to give their "valuable" advice and commentary to anyone.

 

While uploading photos is something for which people will pay, unfortunately, for others many of the people uploading their photos and clamouring for validation as photographers are more of an annoyance than the advertising. So, we have the problem of maintaining the site's "branding" as a site for serious photographers, while attracting enough people who will help pay for it. And this includes advertisers and a lot of people who are perhaps not all as serious, as talented, or as interested in critique as is consistent with the site's mission ("branding").

 

A few years ago we had about 5000 people who were active at any point of time. If we could have persuaded 4000 of them to subscribe, and have maintained that number of subscribers, the site would be quite different today. Like many of the old-timers, I think I might have preferred such a site myself -- although I wouldn't then be connected with it as a full-time employee, because it wouldn't have needed full-time employees. Anyway, I don't think that it would have been possible to get an 80% subscription rate, so wishing for something that could never have been is pointless.

 

Instead, today we have 4000+ subscribers, a fair amount of advertising, an active membership of 30,000 people, and a monthly audience of 2.7 million people. And that is a quite different site, which fortunately for someone who has to work for a living, provides me with a job.

[johne37179]

Now that we have rules for Photonet for children, will there be a site where adults can

post?

What has happened? Who are these children who think they have some right not to be

offended. There was a much more civilized time in the past when insults were an art form

and appreciated. Those who post only for pats on the back have no interest in improving

their craft. While I discount entirely ratings, good and bad, without context...I truly

appreciate the comments and ratings from those whose work I know. The whole point

here is the exchange of information. From time to time I will post an image I don't like and

think I could do much better with, but I am struggling with how to do it. The constructive

'negative' comments are exactly the ones I want.

 

I'm certainly in favor of a no rules environment where the chips can fall where they may. I

am fully capable of sorting them out myself.

 

John

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> For the time being, I have very little use of the site, and no interest in

posting.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Damn. Could have fooled me.

[mbb]

No, this site has a chance right now to become more mature. Children's (regardless of the child age) comments, critiques and opinions can be removed at the discretion of the photographer especially when he/she did not ask for one.

[jimknowles]

Really great!

Don't care that much really about removing so called unwanted criticism - as the worst of

it just shows others what a _____ someone is.

 

But this thing with making only photos which request critiques available to be rated and

counted in the TRP is truly a great concept! If indeed this aspect is implemented I shall

donate to the site beyond my annual fee - as I've stated elsewhere: If this site were to

provide the member with a real and fair opportunity to have photos seen by all members

and be rated by them and have that rating stand fairly as a measure as to actual ranking in

the top pages - I'd pay ten times the fee.

 

I really mean that.

 

This way it really won't matter if someone gives low ratings as long as all ratings are

counted, all pictures are measured with the same ruler as it were, and one can look to the

top pages to discover a fair and honest placement.

 

This may sound awful to some - but all i'm saying really is that it is a gas to arrive home

and look on the site to see what one's peers and superiors and not so superiors think of

one's image. After all - we can all go out and create more images and learn how to see

better.

 

Until I read this thread - indicated to me by another p.net subscriber - I didn't realize

those who did NOT request critique could receive ratings that counted towards their

placement in the TRP. I thought only anonymous ratings counted. This was confusing as

heck for me! Thank you Brian for explaining all this. Wow. What a trip!

 

I look forward to sending P.net a big donation when this is implemented! With no

expectations or strings attached at all!

 

JVK

[jhenry]

happy to hear that you donates an extra 250usd to this site JVK...<p> Brian, can we have some follow up on that ?! That may lead to furthermore gift<p>:o))

[marco_ruggiero]

I truly believe in the freedom of chosing. I, as a photographer, limited in ability as I may be, have the option to give an opinion, primarily since I don't have the knowledge of the purpose of the exhibitor. The exhibitor on the other hand has the freedom to disregard that comment/critique, whether is requested or not. I have learned a great deal on this site from comments and critiques whether I requested one or not.In fact many comments that I have received, were offered because the person had an interest in my work but they also saw the necessity for some improvement. Isn't that one of the reasons that we are members? Therefore, I really don't see the necessity to either create such rule or not, however, I also understand that for some a restriction of choice is necessary. As someone above has already pointed out, change comes out of freedom and not restriction, especially where art is concerned, provided that the criticism/comments do not attack the person's self respect or is humiliating or libelous.

I do not agree with the removal of the direct rating system altogether of the images that have not been posted for Critique, simply because once again it should be the prerogative of the Exhibitor and the rater to grant or withdraw the same.Therefore I propose that the rating system for non anonymous remain as is and allow the same choice as the Critique to rimove it if it is disagreeble. I realize that we all want to look good in the ratings but I would be foolish to kid myself if an image is not worthy. For those that want to bask in the " Numbers " rather than learning, then so be it. Also many times all of us are caught up in the rush of everyday life, and at times, the only way that we can express a value or direction is in the form of a rating.Since that rating has our name to it, the exhibitor has the choice of asking us why we have rated it accordingly, if he/she does not do it, once again so be it. I recognize that they may be unfair direct raters, but then there are unfair anonymous raters so to me it all evens out. In essence, what I am proposing is that the site be left as open and as free as possible. This is, or at least in my opinion, it should be truly a learning vehicle and not a contest.

[mmmee]

I see this as an excellent innovation for this growing, evolving site.

 

If we want to just load photos for reference without serious critique we can do this, without putting our photos up for critique, to our load limit, of course. This would create a place for those who want fans/friends/family to comment their photos and leave the critiquing field open for the serious critiques, hopefully. But I can see where the critiquing could become a killing field, without heavy moderation as mentioned. I suppose if someone is so offended by a critique they can always delete the photo, and then the cry will go up about oh my, all my lovely critique words are gone. They can vanish now, anyway.

 

If we are serious about getting critiques and ratings, we load the photo for critique. I think this simplifies the system, but for the fact that fan clubs will still exist in the critique section unless it is made double blind (no names on the photos or on the crits). Since this would involve a major change to the rating and critiquing system, I would hope that we could all live up to our own highest ideals of what the site should be for critiques or simply comments.

I believe this site was implemented as a critique site for photography. It has obviously evolved into something far from that, with so many different expectations over the years. I think this is a good step to keep up with the evolution of the site.

 

This way, we seperate the wheat from the chaff.