Real Names at Photo.net and search engines

[mg]

This is a question to the management of this site.

 

When I first joined photo.net, and for many years, I used my real name on this

site. And I read recently that real names will soon be the only thing permitted

on the site.

 

I have no objection to using my real name at all, per se, but I just wanted to

let the management know what "some" members - myself at least - might be

concerned about.

 

If you type my sir name on a search engine between "....", you will have about

500 results. A couple of years ago, when I was using my real name on photo.net,

if you had done the same search in the same search engine, you'd have had a few

thousands of additional entries.

 

Point is: posts under my real name used to be all referenced in search engines,

and as a result, anyone who wanted to find information about my work, my own

website and such, would grow impatient and walk off.

 

Is there any way the site can protect its users who would use real names to

have so many references in any search engine ? And if not, what's the

solution ? Regards.

[davidmccracken]

I have to be honest here and say I don't know what you are asking. Do you want to be found or do you not want to be found? 'John Smith' is the most common name in the UK yet I don't think I have ever commented on a photograph on photo.net by a photographer by that name. Marc Gouguenheim is probably not the most popular name in France, and certainly not Malaysia, yet before you deleted some images, I am sure I commented on your work. Type my name in Google and it comes up first... McCracken is more popular than Gouguenheim I guess!

[mg]

I don't understand your question either, to tell you the truth. But here is the reply to the part I do understand:

 

I want people to find MY website and a few (very few) other specific web sites when they key in my name, because I used to get about one third of my yearly income as a photographer from people loging in to the net in order to find me.

 

I do not want that these people, who are looking for me, and who are potential clients, to see 3000 photo.net pages with my comments before they can actually get my new address and telephone number and see my own web site and my portfolio.

 

I am no longer in Malaysia, by the way. :-) Regards.

[mg]

I'll add that right now, when I do a search on my own name, my own website appears in 3rd position. Not bad at all - but basically, what would happen if a thousand photo.net links would come before my own website...?

[mmmee]

Maybe you could use your initials on photo.net. I don't see any objections to using our initials as our 'real name'.

[johncrosley]

Mark G's response may have future implications for me, also, as I am contemplating a website and the possibility of a future selling my photography and/or photographic services

 

It would be uncomfortable remaining a member under my present, (real) name, if my 54 pages of PN posts (referenced in the first two posts under my name which come under a Google name search) are read before someone comes to my web site.

 

It might be cause to leave PN.

 

I might, at some future time, wish to adopt a permutation of my name, as Mark G., has, and for the same reason.

 

If that is disallowed, it might be a reason to quit the site and remove my portfolio when the time comes.

 

I profoundly would regret having to do that; the site means very much to me, and I have been a very big PN supporter.

 

I personally have directed to PN at least 1,000 new members, and always with the recommendation that 'it's so cheap . . . it's good to support it by using the site sponsors to buy a camera . . . usually with a recommendation of which one is trustworthy . . . and reminding them to 'click through' Photo.net so PN gets the credit.

 

That apparently has meant some money to PN as well as the 'clicks' generated by those who would view my content, which I also provide willingly and for free.

 

I never have posted against my images being used to generate advertising dollars, because this site always has shown me great respect and it's been a wonderful value.

 

I hope that will continue in the future, as I am very fond of Photo.net; it is a vital part of my life at present, and the 'community' aspect of PN is a major part of that.

 

I'd like to remain a good citizen of a good-natured community, and I'm hoping that this site will remain an open forum for all community members, who, because of their newness, often are unfamiliar with 'bulletin board' protocol and also because of their newness to PN also are unfamiliar with site policy and practices.

 

I often have stepped in to answer those repetitious questions from newbies, because I have respected that they are newbies who often are unfamiliar with bulletin board practices or the protocol of the site feedback forum and its many repetitious questions. And I have done so good naturedly because I once was a new member and I learned much from reading the site feedback answers from community members to many (including repetitious) site feedback posts.

 

I look forward to resolution of Mark G.'s 'issue' and the issue of 'pseudonyms' as they are important.

 

I know one member who deals with the psychiatrically 'challenged' (read 'deranged' and possibly dangerous and violent) and who cannot post his/her real name.

 

Forcing that member to post a 'real' name would result in immediately terminating that member's account because of the potential for 'acting out' behavior by that person's patient population.

 

There are numerous other reasons for allowing pseudonyms, which are easily recounted. A small fee, as suggested, supported by a credit card (or a copy of government id where a credit card is not available in some circumstances) should be an alternative to 'real name' posting.

 

I currently make all postings in my real name, but it's still an issue to me.

 

John (Crosley)

[mrstubbs]

You may find google logic will limit how many references of your name plus a site (such as this) are listed in a single search. I imagine the engine would grind to a halt if not. Systems are being updated constantly. If photo.net throws in a hundred thousand photographers with a hundred pictures each, the system will react and refine...eventually.

[johncrosley]

Here's how it handled it in my case Anthony: two main listings. One has a link to 'related listings' with 54+ pages of 10 listing/page referencing posts from this site.

 

I deliberately place my second name within parenthesis so maybe it won't reference, hopefully to avoid as many as 500 additional search return pages where I've posted written comments -- I have tried to stymie the Google.com bot.

 

(I'm aware my comments often have my name in print above them, and are searchable that way.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

(to clarify my post and respond to Anthony's comment about my post)

[jhenry]

I don't quite understand the exact reason behind your post Marc.

I've just tried and if I type "Marc Gouguenheim Photo" on Google the first site to appear is your own site and the second and 3rd sites to appear is your POW/portfolio at PNet, the 4th is your portfolio at PPoint, the fifth at altPhoto, the sixth one your portfolio at tripod and it continues without interruption for pages....<br> I would say your risk is not to get ignored/lost among other photographers with similar name but to get your own commercial site lost among your simultaneous presence in every single webphotosites

<p>

when I type 'jacques Henry photo' the first line to appear is also PNet Portfolio.

<br>

Same for you David and John.<p><i>

 

by the way I started a general thread about RealName where members are exposing their different opinions/worries on this question.</i>

[mrstubbs]

I began typing before your post appeared John. I was responding to the original post. You type much faster than I.

 

I love watching the web evolve. My answer is from that perspective.

 

The evolution of communication is awe inspiring. The issues of privacy and selective openness (is that a word) go past my capacity.

[johncrosley]

This is in response to (and maybe to clarify matters relating to M. Henry's post above.

 

It is true that if one posts under one's name on numerous sites, there is a risk of confusion.

 

However, because of the nature of the Google.com search criteria, and the nature of PN's size, structure, number of hits and number of links, etc., it is almost certain that if an individual posts a substantial number of photos to PN that he/she will get a very large number of 'hits' and consequently the PN site presence quickly (I am told) often rises to the top of the Google.com search results, eclipsing anyting more mundane, such as a personal web site.

 

I do NOT post on other web sites, so the issue of confusion would not be present if I were to be a pseudonymous member who had web site under my real name. I would want to do so, because in Google.com (the only one that really matters), it is almost certain that the PN listings would stay at the top, and my web site would always be 'secondary' -- no matter how popular it might become.

 

As such, if I establish myself commercially, I need a separation between any possible commercial web site under my real name and any presence on Pnoto.net. That only leads to a pseudonymous listing, although a variation on my real name might be one possibility, but one I would resist as being likely to confuse.

 

So, the issue you point out with M.G. does not apply to my situation at all -- simultaneous postings under 'real name'.

 

I note, however, that the other sites in M.G's instance, are secondary sites that apparently don't generate as high a 'page rank' as M.G.'s web site.

 

It would not be the same case, I venture, if M.G. were to resume posting on PN under his real name.

 

John (Crosley)

[jhenry]

You've made it clearer. I've understood your point. Thanks.

[jhenry]

And therefore Marc, I can see your point of view.

[jayme]

Interesting dilemma Marc. I must admit, I didn't understand your original question until you clarified it in your response to David.

 

I think the reason "Real Names" is being considered by administration is to prevent bogus accounts that plague PN, reeking havoc with all aspects of operations.

 

I see your point & the point of others over the use of their real names. But, I think the administrations intentions are to help alleviate the "bogus" account syndrome that plagues their system.

 

Maybe after a member has been verified as valid, you could be given one opportunity to chose a name (like yours with the initial G). This might be a solution for those who also fear using their real names.

 

But ultimately, it becomes administration's decision. I feel sure they are aware of the consequences that "might" occur.

 

Obviously, I have no problem using my real name, but I am sensitive to others concerns.

[root]

I recently set up my own web site, and was curious to see how google would react, given that I haven't done much to market it to maximize page hits. Although it took them longer than other search engines, my site now comes up first, much to my surprise.

 

I don't understand the problem. There are a half dozen other "Carl Root"s with a web presence, but if you type in "Carl Root" photography, you'll find me and only me.

 

That's one issue. The other issue you're concerned with is photo.net overwhelming the search, and that simply doesn't happen. Take a look. I've entered "Marc G.", and "John Crosley", and although this site comes up first or second for all three of us, only John gets two PN page hits. Marc and I only get one. (I entered John Crosley without quotes - same thing.)

 

Google gives you the option of a more complete listing of the kinds of pages you may be looking for, and yes, you will be swamped with PN hits, but that's not Google's default search choice.

[johncrosley]

Jayme and Administration,

 

If the primary reason for a 'real names' policy is to prevent 'bogus accounts' which have plagued Photo.net, then if positive identification can be made,I can see little reason not to allow pseudonymous POSTINGS.

 

There remain so many reasons members who might post photos will not want to post if they must reveal their true name, but will willingly reveal it to Administration, that it stretches the imagination.

 

Imagine, for instance, a member in a represssive regime of religious intolerance and/or political intolerance, and a member wants to post photos that might result in imprisonment in the home country (as one member from a Communist regime has here), but the photos are not only innocuous but good photography.

 

Imagine also a regime, such as Saudi Arabia where women are forbidden from driving, who wants to post just a regular (nonnude) photo of a pretty woman in a bathing suit at the beach or a fashion photo, perhaps made elsewhere when he/she was on vacation.

 

Would you have that person identify himself as, perhaps, 'A. Abdullah, Saudi Arabia', thus subjecting him/her/self to Sharia Law?

 

Of course, such a person would not willingly be a PN member and the site not only would lose that photo of a pretty woman, but it might also lose very interesting photos of the Kingdom, including possible 'street' photos taken from a perspective that is seldom seen anywhere, and maybe even photos of the Haj, etc. -- photos that can be made nowhere else.

 

Does Photo.net really want to make itself available only to members/subscribers from nations that allow relatively free and uncensored communication (note the term 'relative') as opposed to certain intolerant countries and regimes?

 

That is almost certain to be a result of a real name POSTING policy, when one considers the need of potential members who reside in repressive regimes to consider their freedom and personal safety.

 

If I were to sit for an hour and just dream up specific scenarios that challenge the 'publicly available real name POSTING' policy being considered -- I could reel off example after example of individuals who either would have to leave Photo.net; who would end up having to self-censor their photos (and I don't mean just not posting nudes, but anything other than the most innucuous photos, such as landscapes); or they would not be able to join the site at all -- perhaps a great loss to the community.

 

Such persons probably would be important customers for our advertisers, too, as many such individuals would mail order from them, and others travel through NYC where many advertisers who sell merchandise peddle their wares.

 

Other advertisers include software vendors who sell worldwide -- such as Apple -- and such sales are worldwide. Such vendors would benefit from having members worldwide, no matter how repressive the regime; the money paid for an advertiser's software doesn't know how repressive that regime is.

 

If that person in a repressive regime is not a Photo.net member/subscriber, then that sale and exposure to advertising is far less likely, resulting in a net loss to advertisers.

 

This issue of pseudonymous POSTINGS is a weighty question and deserving of great consideration, because the problem of mate-rating and abuses of the rating system is extremely important, and it appears pseudonymnous MEMBERSHIP has been one of the culprits, but one must distinguish between 'free-for-all, pseudonymous MEMBERSHIP' without any screening and pseudonymous POSTING, which is far different.

 

Membership has no reason to be pseudonymous and I can see no real reason for it, and so I endorse the policy (leaving the possibility of rare exceptions) for forbidding pseudonymous MEMBERSHIP, but as to POSTINGS -- that's another thing.

 

There are uncountable permutations and combinations of circumstances in which members (whose identity is known to Administration) may wish or need to remain pseudonymous, as I have stated above and before.

 

If there is a problem in the forums related to one particular member posting 'trolls' or whatever they're called, then the Adminstration will readily be able to identify that individual, and, if banned, that individual would not be able to sign up again ever under a different name.

 

This is a large site and one which I do not use in its entirety, so there may be other considerations I am unaware of, and I'd like to know about those, so I can consider those, as this proposed policy greatly affects my plans . . . and possibly my future membership.

 

With respect.

 

John (Crosley)

[philg]

I think I've figured it out now, RealName circa 2006 = Communism circa 1950. RealName is the Red Menace. It will sap the strength of the programmers at Google to the point that nobody will be able to find anything on the Internet anymore.

 

[Of course, until the RealName destroys the Internet and life as we know it, one can still do a little test... Googling '"philip greenspun" site:photo.net' brings up about 5000 entries. Googling 'philip greenspun' brings up my personal site as the #1 result.]

[johncrosley]

In response to Carl Root's recent post.

 

I have great concern that, since my photography is not nearly as famous as the esteemed Mr. Root -- who is a real (no trolling) photographic treasure -- that I simply may not have the same experience if I were to post a web site under my own name.

 

I have a real and genuine misgiving that, given that I have a large number of postings on this site, that the Google search formula, will end up placing both of its returns for me relating to the Photo.net site well above any personal site of mine that I might establish.

 

Moreover, I contemplate I simply would not want the general public to make the association. It's not simply a matter of Photo.net 'overwhelming' the rankings or ranking above my own web page, but also even of Photo.net being on the same search result return page.

 

I very well may wish to divorce any page with results from a web site entirely separate from a page noting my Photo.net postings, etc. -- it seems the only way to do that is to allow pseudonymous POSTINGS from a KNOWN MEMBER.

 

By pseudonymous, that does not mean no one on the site knows my name, but that it is not easily referenced by the general public.

 

Confusion is the enemy of commerce; if I am going to sell my name, I want to have control over where and when my name is displayed.

 

The advent of Google.com has added an interesting twist to this -- one that has not yet been thoroughly considered, so may be a case of first instance.

 

If knowledge of the identify of members by the ADMINISTRATION is the goal, then presenting positive ID should solve the issue.

 

As a further safeguard, each case could be considered individually, with an appropriate review, if the Administration feels that is a necessary.

 

If the Administration has other motivating factors and/or goals, I would like to know what those are, so I can consider those fairly.

 

My mind is not absolutely fixed, and I am open to new considerations that might affect my judgment.

 

John (Crosley)

[johncrosley]

In response to Mr. Greenspun's interesting post.

 

I have no objection to anyone knowing my 'real name'. I post continually under that 'real name'.

 

I am contemplating entering photographic commerce under my 'real name', and I wish to avoid 'trade confusion' and hope to control some dissemination of my name and control as much as possible how it is associated, by such means as are in my control.

 

Those means are, regrettably few, and the means are rather clumsy. Those means also, regrettably, might mean withdrawal from Photo.net if it means the difference between 'making a living' and 'not making a living'.

 

There is an entire body of law devoted to the idea of 'confusion' under trade, but the idea of having potential customers identify one on an Internet Search engine and finding one's personal postings on a community/club web site when one is engaged in commerce about that same subject presents a problem that probably has not been explored thoroughly. And it's not a legal problem/it's a business/personal decision.

 

If nothing else, it is distracting to the commerce sought and may divert needed sales as the potential customer clicks on the Photo.net portfolio with photos and comments and decides that the named photographer is a 'club photographer' and doesn't search beyond Photo.net or finds opinions expressed that are objectionable to the customer, etc.

 

That is certainly one set of possibilities.

 

Moreover, having both search results on the same web search return page may certainly discourage the free exchange of opinions under 'comments', and also prevent the posting of out-of-genre photos in one's portfolio, for fear that either may drive off potential customers.

 

One easily can understand a PN photographer, also engaged in commerce, who, to avoid putting off his potential customers, trims his Photo.net portfolio of its most interesting but 'different' postings in order to keep from confusing customers who search his web site expecting a certain 'sort' of photograph.

 

It may be precisely those 'different' photographs that engage the potential PN browser who is also a camera buyer and software buyer from PN advertisers. What happens when those 'different photos are trimmed? Does the advertiser lose?

 

A photographer who is a 'nature photographer' or a 'portrait photographer' only, will have not have such a problem with both search results being displayed on the same search engine results page, but, I post in a varietey of genres, and I'm a little more difficult to pinpoint, as I search for my photographic 'home' or 'homes'.

 

My career (if there is one) may go in one or more directions.

 

As a man experienced in commerce, I suspect you'll respect the financial aspects of this conundrum, if you can put yourself in my shoes as a content provider/good, able and generally content PN citizen.

 

Philip, I have no problem Posting Under My REAL NAME -- It's Just On What Forum -- Yours -- or . . . potentially . . . Mine -- that's my consideration.

 

I fear that because of the way 'search engine' returns from Google. etc., are displayed, that SIMULTANEOUS REAL NAME postings may be objectionable because of customer confusion considerations.

 

That's the point without political/privacy considerations from this point of view at all.

 

Strictly commerce.

 

Look at it this way.

 

Sellers have to 'brand' themselves.

 

PN's proposed required 'real name POSTING, will defeat the goal of 'personal branding' of my photography, if I wish to enter the desirable state of doing commerce on the web under my 'real name'.

 

No one in commerce wants to have a 'confused brand', including me.

 

It's basic business school stuff.

 

John (Crosley)

[someoneelse]

Ohhhhhhhh this is fun with my name, tommorow I will be here on PN 3 years, I just googled it in search here on PN:

 

Search on PN:

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,560 from www.photo.net for someone else. (0.35 seconds)

 

Search on web

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,300,000 for someone else. (0.06 seconds)

 

After this I did do it with my real name, and I have no trouble people knowing my real name, my first name is Els (that's how the name someone ELSe was born) I remember also that I changed it in nobody ELSe, everyody ELSe... and more childish rubbish, and my last name is Wetting.... so that is fun also ofcoure ;D

 

Without my first name

Search on PN

Results 1 - 10 of about 251 from www.photo.net for Wetting. (0.28 seconds)

 

Search on web

Results 1 - 10 of about 567,000 for Wetting. (1.06 seconds)

 

But I like my 'nick-name' it is important for me, I had the idea this name stays in the heads off some people, and there are enough people who know my real name is Els... and what is in a name, I have been once married, not anymore, but also then I didn't change my name in my ex-husbands name, that is my way of live...... And I still hope I will be 'famous' some day hahahahaha, and how would it sounds iff there is an exposition of 'SOMEONE ELSE', it will be noticed don't you think?

 

Ahhhhhhh I don't know perhaps 'someone else' knows it better ;D

 

Els (Wetting)

[rayfraser]

I think this thread is beginning to degenerate. I even edited Philip's post suggesting he use my name instead of his (scroll up).

 

I think I'll let it stay awhile - just so others can see someone else's gallery (click on the unreal name above).

[root]

Degenerate?!

 

John has made some good points, once again reminding us that some of us have business interests which could be enhanced or compromised by participation on this site. (Management used to assume that this wasn't the case, but now I think everyone concedes the point.)

 

We already try to differentiate content that members see from content visitors see. Now we have another reason to separate photos uploaded for adulation (public viewing) from those uploaded for critique.

 

Forum posts come up in searches more by subject than by author. I don't think there's even a remote chance that a prospective employer would find this thread.

 

Photo comments? Count on it.

[niranjn]

Carl> Forum posts come up in searches more by subject than by author. I don't think there's even a remote chance that a prospective employer would find this thread.

 

They would, if someone uses the name in plain text. I could say, "Carl R00t (spelt correctly), ...", it will show up.

 

Even if it doesn't now, we should anticipate that search engines will get smarter and smarter. I understand that it may be to a professional photographer's benefit to use a real name; however, for those for whom photography is strictly a hobby, there is risk. Risk could be from many sources -- prospective employers, stalkers, etc. -- as others have pointed out eloquently. The source of the risk is that your real name is attached to your words, and those can now matched with other words that you may have said in other websites etc. While you are fine with your contributions to this site being public, you may not want data mining software to pick up other stuff, inferring all kinds of things along the way.

 

Sometimes when I web search my name and run into USENET postings from more than a decade ago, it makes me nervous. Not because of what I said, but because, someone who doesn't know me can come to arbitrary conclusions based on stereotypes (that members who post in those USENET groups have in common, say). I might just be paranoid, but stuff on the internet lives long, way too long.

 

Philip's comments about using real names have all been snarky and without the gravity needed for this topic. I am sure he understands the privacy concerns, but has (probably long ago) decided that these arguments are without much merit. So be it.

[johncrosley]

With all due respect to this forum and its moderator, when I replied to Philip Greenspun's post and stated that I was not then concerned with privacy considerations, it was 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD ONLY'

 

I, too, share concerns regarding the perpetuation of comments made and archived on the web and potentially to be used for malignant purposes.

 

I formerly practiced law, and you can be assured if you ever are in an accident and must sue someone, and it's a major claim, someonebody's going to be looking at all your posts (including Usenet and Photo.net comments, etc.) to see your politics, habits, and especially your temperamental trigger points, so that opposing counsel can somehow trigger an outburst from you in deposition and/or court by dwelling on something that he/she knows is a sensitive topic.

 

There are untold other considerations, none of which I was walking away from when I made my prior post. I am very concerned about the 'privacy' issue raised by 'archived' out-of-context comments.

 

Lawyers' stock in trade is using things out of context, and if they find some remark you make in a forum here or in a comment under a photo here, you can bet they'll use it against you, even if they know it doesn't truly represent your manner of thinking.

 

The post just has to have words, a thought, and your name attached, and it's 'yours' whether you endorse the idea for all time or not. It might have been 'sarcastic' within context, but you might end up staring at some outrageous statement with your name attached as though it represented your way of thinking and doing it before a jury.

 

It doesn't have to be 'sarcastic' -- it might be something self-revelatory, or just something that might be uncomfortable in malignant hands. Lawyers have such 'malignant hands' (so to speak) if they can use your posts against you to win a case. It's their stock in trade, and they are well-paid for their skills.

 

This was just not my issue and my day and place for raising that issue -- it's a grave issue and deserving of utmost consideration.

 

(I just gave it away for sake of argument).

 

John (Crosley)

[think27]

Marc - I just read yours and a few other posts so forgive me if I am saying something others have also mentioned.

 

I get 30 million results for my name because it is quite common.

 

However - my website STILL comes up on page one ABOVE any Photo.net link even though I use my real name on Photo.net and have for many many years. I don't think you'll really have a problem - just make sure your site is optimized.

 

Furthmore - Google does not list tons of photo.net links - just 2-3 of them.