Is there a future for PN?

[mbb]

Ben, let me write a few words on subject I try to avoid like a disease. It clearly shows that ratings are making most people unhappy. This matter pop-up even in unrelated threads like a mushrooms after rain. As principal rating system is not a bad idea. It can work fine and help evaluate many photographs in a short time. Say we have an �expert� who decide to dedicate his/her time to evaluate photos posted for critique. He/she has limited time same as all of us. Writing long essays will allowed him/her to evaluate only a few photos. Writing short critiques take care of several. Rating can be done on many. There is no need to write anything on photos rated 1-3 as it is a waste of time. Sure everybody feels important and wants essay. And where real problems starts, positive one. I understand that you and your friends have fun trying to say nice things about each other work. But what kind of benefits you gain in long range. Nada. It even does bad effects as everybody think ALL his/her work is very good.

 

It is very hard to make more then a few exceptional (7/7 or whatever you call it) photos per year even by very good photographer. Even one per year is a lot. And there is no such thing as amateur or pro. Final image counts. Pro can make living taking passport�s photos and many �amateurs� I met are far much better then average or good pro. Exchanging friendly opinions is maybe nice as social interaction but won�t help nobody who is serious to learn more and all the time. Most I ever learned was from experienced people who tear my photo apart. It maybe a sour feeling first but when you sleep over it comes to you that that person gave you a real help. Again one have to be serious and have goals to appreciate that.

 

Another problem is that we all, no exceptions, are taking weak photos. As in my case documentary value is often very important. But asking for a critique of a crappy photo is asking for trouble. We all can love ourselves but cannot all be miss or mister universe, can we? The faster we learn about our own limitations the better and less disappointments in the future.

 

As usually good things are not coming free how about site hiring the real, well known photo judges to rate say for $1 per one photo. Not a self appointed anonymous elves but a true experts who are recognized outside of here. Extra benefit? One will think twice before asking to critique crap or it will cost him a buck to see 1/1 (not 3/3). Actual system can stay for those who like their friends giving them 7/7. Benefit of spending a dollar. Huge. If one get score 1, 2 or 3 it should know that there is a long way to learn more and girlfriend and aunt were wrong sending him/her for assignment work with NG.

 

We had a quite of few people in the past who wanted to help free. They are humans, they make mistake too. To protect themselves from being shot they used nick names. Almost nobody appreciated their time. If somebody rated photo 7/7 it was fine but 4 or below triggered post that they do not want that person rate their masterpieces. If site wants to keep ratings it is time to end up with circus and either get serious or problems will never end. Well I almost forgot that many people won�t pay membership dues if their average is too low. So any good solution? Maybe $100 a year membership which not allow their photos to be rate below 6?

 

When I was writing a few more post pop-up. It is too late to discuss those. But please Stephen H do not accuse me of things I have noting to do with. For more then year I never posted one photo for critique and do not have any intention to do that either here or anywhere else. I enjoy life more then you can imagine. And my life is in the field taking photos not in the front of computer (you do not see a pen sign behind my name). It is just an old sentiment as PN was a first and only photo site I visited a lot.

[ndelamerced]

IMO, PN is for beginners and intermediate photographers. Or on a scale of 1-7, This is a

school for 1-5. Members who are on the 6-7 category will not learn much from the

submissions but that does not mean that they are useless. They can guide others to grow

and develop by giving critiques and giving low marks fearlessly. If the ratee reacts

negatively, to a constructive criticism and low mark, then that person is just in an ego trip

and not interested in the opinion of a master.

So, to all those bored with, sunsets, landscape, flowers, insects and birds. Remember, you

walked this path before. Try to see it our way, and soon we'll get over it.

 

Caviar tastes fishy.

[bens]

Thanks for the response, Mark. Actually, I agree with much of the substance of your concerns about the ratings system. I also think that we benefit from critiquing honestly as much as kindly. There are more of us than you think who try to do both. However, just because I agree with you that the site would benefit greatly from changes does not mean I agree its worthy of condemnation, particularly during a time of transition, and a time when the site appears from the outside to be facing some significant challenges. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

[david morgan]

That's a pretty complacent offering Stephen H. 3/3 ratings are invariably the first recorded, I've checked over a period of several months.

 

I don't care if I get only 3s, it tells me to improve or ship out. A system that consistently gives ratings between 3 and 7 inc. is unreliable and ultimately worthless.

 

It's simplistic to argue that people who complain about the rating system are sore about not getting good ratings. It's the lack of

consistency that is the problem.

 

I guess it's the same in forums, you have to know the credentials of

of those making the comment, many can be readily dismissed.

[orensztajn]

Comparing PN with other sites, like Pbase or flick, I have to say the PN's future does not seems very brigth.

 

Hope I am wrong.

[bill_thorlin]

I first came on this site ( after a good look around ) to obtain skilled advice on the camera and system I was/am using and about the areas of interest I had/have. I got that advice ( including much from the original poster ) and for that I will always be grateful.

 

I also wished to improve the end product - the photographs I was taking - and to this end looked at the system available. After a good look around and seeing the absolute plethora of complaints, arguments and abuse ( of the system and the person ) I decided it was just not for me.

 

Phillip Greenspun - it is indeed essential that the basics of the business are properly in place and working well. I would however contend that it is the job of senior management to ensure that this is done and not to do it themselves. It is their job to plot the way forward and to improve and develop the product on offer. I accept your cliche "we must learn to walk before we can run" but would add one in return - "you need to see the wood for the trees".

 

There seem to be a lot of things going on at present but some idea of the overall objective may put people's minds at rest just a little. For the moment I will put up with the access and posting problems and wait and see - but I still have this feeling that I am only getting half the cake I have paid for.

[kellen1]

Hello, I was interested to read your comments and I was left wondering where you would like us beginners to go? I have an art background but have only recently became "serious" with my photography. All of my work is digital, although it is not 100% digitally enhanced, some photos are just cropped and posted as is. This purely digital photography seems to rufle the feathers of the more conservative artists out there but always recived higher ratings than my nore subdued shots. My Average is 4.25 for Originality and Aesthetics and I am learning a lot from the critiques of the members, they are not all throw away digital camera weilding morons as you are suggesting.

 

If you think your work is too good for the sight, just leave, chances are, we won't miss you.

[James G. Dainis]

I sometines get the feeling from reading the posts on the Feedback forum, that many people think that the sole purpose of photo net is for people to post their photos and get and receive ratings and critiques. A newcomer would certainly get that impression. The true value of photo.net is to get, receive and trade information. Showing a photo of a well composed, well lit and well exposed bride is nice but it teaches nothing. What lens was used, what film, what lighting technique? You can't get that from looking at a photo. The real nuts and bolts is in the forums where people can ask and receive answers from other pros, or serious amateurs, or photographers can trade information.

[ivan colman]

Ever since I was active on Photo.Net there was the same critique. In previous ages it was better ! Now a hang around on this side long enough to understand what that means. But my problem is I don�t understand anything. Just as in the beginning of my photo.net precence these critiques came from people who are looking for the large version of �waaaw� or �excellent�. These critiques always refer to this very pleasant, informative and enjoyable in-crowd chats.But if You ask me, this description of photo.net was never true. As outsider it was, is and will be impossible to become a member of this selected conservative peer-group.

 

Now photo.net is exponentially growed the impact of these groups is lowered. By all this new members photo.net evolved and did cope with the modern trends in photography. Of course among all these newby�s there are people who dares to place the in-crowds work in a broader perspective. As with a lot of photo clubs, the modern trends grow homesickness with the conservative members who think of themselfs that they are the global photographicall reference

 

But I never minded. Photo.net offers everything to keep track of modern photography. I never saw photo.net as a confirmation of my skills. I never expected good critics from the photonet members. And instead of critisizing the rating system, I used it for what it is worth.... namely getting an insight in what the public wants. And all this feed back (the absence of comments and ratings is also feed back) I used on my own manner to evolve my photography. And therefor photo.net is still very valuable. Photography is changing rapidely by the introduction of digital photography. Photo appreciation is consequently also changing rapidely. And photo.net still offers a lot (the largest lot on the internet ?) to keep track of these evolution.

 

For the rest my motto is : photography is like wine. Very expensive experts can tell me what I should like. But once it is in my mouth and it taste like shit... I don�t care what all these experts tell me. Then it is bad wine !

[stephen hazelton]

Mark, in my post, "you" is meant in a generic sense, not for you specifically. Some of the items I mentioned came up in the responses to your post, not in your post itself.

[kent_tolley2]

This is very sad but I have to agree with the original poster. What is most disappointing to me is that good people have been expressing the same or similar concerns for a long time. I know that the administration has tried to be responsive in many instances. They have fiddled with the rating system to try to prevent the flagrant abuse but if I look at the TRP, which I do occasionally, I see a lot of very bad photographs. I think the real goal has been lost here. Too many people think the goal is getting to the top of the TRP, getting "famous" instead of getting to the top of their photographic capability. What has become important is other people's opinions of their work instead of their work. PhotoNet with it's rating system and TRP has encouraged this. I guess we are no different than the world at large but let's not kid ourselves that we truly respect that system. In so many ways we have forgotten who we truly are.<BR><BR>

 

 

 

I think I agree with all the other points Mark brought but I don't want to write a long boring post. I have both loved and hated this site. I have never found a long-standing way to make this place home. I have even let it affect my photography, going through slumps of not shooting. I have a huge amount of respect for Brian. What other site administrator would even allow this very discussion to be seen by it's contributors? My difficulties with this site are not the administrators but the contributors. I think we are the ones that have let each other down. Maybe the dream we had was unrealistic from the beginning. I don't have any answers or solutions but I know what I feel. Disappointed and sad.

[lisa_b4]

To the poster that suggested it was the "non-paying people who complain the most," don't forget that there are many of us who USED to be paying members, but have stopped renewing our accounts because of our dissatisfaction with how Pnet has been run.

 

Personally, I'm not at all interested in paying a subscription fee to a website that bombards me with ads. There are numerous other photography websites--most of them virtually ad free.

 

It seems that in the past 1-2 years or so that Pnet has chosen a business model where they value "hits/clicks" (which are used to sell ads) over actual paid memberships. IMHO, this was a huge mistake.

 

It seems to me that there are three choices:

 

1. A Pnet with little-to-no ads a 100% paid membership (guests passes and trial memberships still allowed, but not limitless...)

 

2. A Pnet with a lot of ads AND asking for paid membership (what we have now).

 

3. A Pnet with lots of ads and no paid membership.

 

Given the choices above, I would take #1 hands down!

[stephen hazelton]

I just tried a little test on the ratings. I pulled up the critique screen, and the most recent shot posted was this:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=4846529

And when I pulled it up, it was showing ratings of 4/4 4/5 5/4 5/5- but, no 3/3 yet.

 

I pulled up two other shots:

http://www.photo.net/photo/4845385 which had ratings of 3/3 4/4 5/4 5/5 (1 rating each)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4753183

3/3 4/3 4/4 5/7 (1 rating each)

 

This is what I mean about there being no consistent 3/3 pattern. Two of these shots have a 3/3, but only one each, and it is in line with the other ratings. The most recent one had four ratings, but hadn't gotten a 3/3 yet. All three shots DO have a 4/4 rating, but that isn't the issue. It could be that a robot is on the loose, or that someone is sitting there mindlessly clicking away with 3/3's, but at least 4 other people had time to get a presumably thoughtful rating on that first shot before it happened.

[mottershead]

Lisa, if you were a subscriber, you would be seeing almost no ads at all. #2 is not the current situation. In your options, you forgot #4, which is the real status quo: subscribers pay and see almost no ads, and non-subscribers see ads.

 

The status quo is a blend of your #1 and #3. Effectively, people get to choose whether they pay or see ads. (I say "effectively" because officially people who post frequently are required and expected to subscribe. But, since we leave this to the honor system, many people interpret subscriptions as optional.)

[david_henderson]

"there are many of us who used to be paying members". Lisa B signed up in September '05, is not a subscriber now, and has had no opportunity to renew.

[dan flanders]

I've said it before and I'll say it again even though it may be boring to some of the readers of this forum; I don't post photos on this site and I don't rate the posted photos. However, if I should choose to rate I doubt if more than a few would rate above 4/4 and most would rate lower, some in the forbidden 1-2 category. Of all the images I have studied on this site there would be some that would receive top rating but the number would be small. As to critiques, I might be inclined to elaborate my evalustions in some instances, but I would not consider it a neccessary act, and it is doubtful if others would benefit from my rationale. <p> Rather than deplore the whinings of the multitudes I am glad to see them displayed; they are often amusing and sometimes informative even though ill thought out. Leave the site the way it is except perhaps restore the 1-2 categories. There will always be soreheads and malcontents, but that is what makes the world interesting.

[hatley]

<i>"I'm envious of you guys being able to think the big thoughts. ... "</i><br><br>

 

Right on mate, and I for one will for sure give you the 6-12 months to get to where you want.

 

I will make two suggestions, since I know you need them (*grin), based on recent posts:<br><br>

<b>1. Post a roadmap as soon as you feel comfortable doing so. </b> Someone else made this suggestion and I think it would really float a lot of our boats.

<br><br>

<b>2. Go full blown 501c3.</b> It would send a strong message and differentiate the organization. The intellectual property questions, profit methods, yadda that you will likely be reviewing and structuring could be done in tandem. Making up your mind to go non-profit all the way would put photo.net on a very positive path in a way that creates a legacy...just my view. Plus it opens the organization up to grants, and structuring with that in mind is another good path that seems closer to your (and the site's) academic roots. All of which probably better to consider doing now either way, as in six months or more it would mean a painful reorg of your strategy to get done. <br><br>Cheers.

[hatley]

"profit methods" should read "revenue generation", etc - but you get the gist...

[tholte]

Dan, "Rather than deplore the whinings of the multitudes I am glad to see them displayed; they are often amusing and sometimes informative even though ill thought out. Leave the site the way it is except perhaps restore the 1-2 categories. There will always be soreheads and malcontents, but that is what makes the world interesting." You made my day Dan, I now know that I am not alone here on PN.

[dan flanders]

Thanks,

Dan F

[david morgan]

Are you being serious, can anyone be that pompous?

 

You do not post photos on the site or rate other's photos except in your post where you tell us we're all below average. That would be

great if we knew where you were coming from. As I said earlier it's all about credentials, should we respect you Dan? Post some photos so we know if you are the master or not.

[tholte]

David, "As I said earlier it's all about credentials, should we respect you Dan?" I don't know about Dan's credentials but I sure respect his knowledge of the psychology of many of the people that post questions here on the feed-back forum.

[bill_thorlin]

Many of the best coaches were unsuccessful sportsmen.

[dan flanders]

Whatever my photographic skills they have no bearing whatever on my ability to judge what fits MY taste. I do not post photos because all the serious photography I produce is private and/or personal. It is for that reason that I refrain from publicly judging the efforts of others. In perusing the posted images I am often amazed at the TECHNICAL abilities exhibited, but my private opinions of their aesthetic value is purely subjective and private and I make no apologies therefor. The opinions I expressed in my previous post are conjectural and general in nature reflecting only my personal reaction, whether or not it coincides with the opinions of others.

[david morgan]

I joined PN a year ago because it was the only site I knew of that

provided an opportunity to see the work of others engaged in taking

landscape photographs which was the area in which I was interested.

The fact that others thus engaged were empowered to judge my work was an added attraction. I saw the ability of those more skilled than

I to asses my work as a very good reason to join and to learn about the weak points in my efforts.

 

Anonymous ratings, be they good or bad, are absolutely worthless since the raters lack credibility and provide those with an axe to grind an opportunity to vent their frustrations.

 

Better photographers than I have been angered by the anon rating system and those who deny there is a problem are trying to keep

the lid on a boiling pot.