DELETE MY ACCOUNT

[mark_a2]

Hello,

I have been trying to get a response for some time. My problems never solved,

my messages never answered... ETC!

 

Please, just delete my account.

 

Thank you,

Mark

[bobatkins]

There really no need to delete an account.

 

Forum posts and images are not removed when an account is closed so a "deleted" account is just the same as one which you don't use.

 

I believe you can mark your account as "deleted" from your workspace via the "unsubscribe" link. If you do that, you can "undelete" it in the future if you so wish. The only real difference between that and just not using the account is that a message that the account is deleted appears in your workspace.

[kim_boyce_townsend]

I wish to delete my account also and have sent 6 messages to Photo.net and no one is answering! What do you have to do to these people?

[think27]

As Bob says - Photo.net does not "Delete your account". You do. Go to your "Workspace" and you will see a link to "unsubscribe". Your account will show as "deleted". Your posts will still be in the site. You can also disable your email address if you wish by changing it to a non-address.

 

Should you wish to come back at some time in the future - you will be able to do so by re-subscribing under your deleted account.

[deli]

Ohh come on. Accounts have been deleted (banning) more often than not. Furthermore, some people had their posts on the threads removed.

[bobatkins]

Photo.net bans you if you're a pain and you cause trouble. In that case your account is closed forever (i.e. you can't ever get it back) and you are marked as a "banned" user in the database.

 

Deletion and banning are different. All deletion means is that you yourself have closed the account, but you can reopen it when you want to.

 

In neither case is a poster's history removed. Apart from serious instances of abuse or obscenity, deliberately misleading posts (trolls), adverising or spam, everything you've ever said in any of the forums stays there forever. That's one reason to think before posting.

 

If you want to delete your account, delete it. You don't need any help from photo.net to do that. Most, if not all, of your postings stay whatever you do with your account or whatever photo.net does with it. Makes no difference.

[thomas_hardy1]

Wouldn't you just stop using it?

[emre]

The issue is that some people want to take their contributions with them.

[bobatkins]

Which, of course, they don't get to do.

 

TERMS OF USE: ".... By submitting material, however, you grant photo.net and its successors or assigns a perpetual non-exclusive world-wide royalty-free license to publish that material on the World Wide Web as part of the photo.net web site...."

[WJT]

and behave myself here, would there ever be an instance where I could not delete my portfolio of photographs. I understand that my Forum comments, and those photographs that I have inluded in Forum posts such as the No Words Forum, would stay in the database. Would I always have control over my photographs that are in the Gallery and in my portfolio?<p>

 

Some members have expressed concern that PhotoNet would not allow a photograph's author to delete it. Perhaps this is due to the revised TOU. Perhaps this concern has been brought about by the fact that many of the Gallery photographs have been submitted for critique and appear in the Critique Forum. Could someone speak for the Administration on this subject? It would put many fears to rest. Regards.

[bobatkins]

If you are a photo.net member in good standing, you always have the right and the ability to remove any of your images from the site at any time. There may be an exception for images chosen for the POW, I'm not sure about that. Since ther POWs and discussions are archived, it might be reasonable to hold onto those images for their use in the archived threads. However I think in the past even POW images have been removed by their owners.

 

It's always been the case (and still is) that anything you have the ability to remove can be removed and photo.net doesn't make copies of submitted images (except in routine site backups). You can remove images but you can't remove Q&A discussion forum contributions. There are no plans that I'm aware of to change that.

 

The critique forum isn't really a discussion forum though it shares some of the same software. It's really more part of the gallery. As far as I know you can remove images submitted to the critique forum without any problem and again I'm not aware of any intent to change that.

 

Again, as far as I know photo.net has no current of future plans to hang onto user submitted images without the consent of the user or to limit a user's ability to remove any image at any time.

 

However, if you get yourself banned for some reason (repeatedly abusing other photo.net users for example) and your account is marked as "banned", then you no longer have any access to photo.net. Normally anyone who gets banned knows that it's coming. You generally get a number of warnings and or suspensions well before that happens.

 

If you are banned you would no longer have access to the site and so you no longer have access to your images to delete them.

 

However under normal circumstances, a request to photo.net administration to remove your the images would be granted. Photo.net would have no use for them and no particular desire to keep them on the site. I don't think I can say that with 100% certainty for all past and future management, but it would be a reasonable course of action and if a banned user asked me (in a reasonable manner) to do it, I would.

 

As the Terms of Use are currently written, photo.net would theoretically have the right to hang onto the images and use them on the photo.net website.

 

There is the possibility that a banned users may be reinstated at some future time. Such requests would be considered. In that case the user might want to leave their images on the site, or they may wish to leave them on the site anyway to gain publicity for their work. Those are among the reasons why the images are not automatically deleted.

 

I didn't write the Terms of Use, so for any exact interpretation of the wording and intent Philip would have to comment. They can also change of course.

 

The bottom line is that photo.net has no interest in hanging onto your images against your wishes. With several thousand new images being posted each day, there's not exactly a shortage of images to display!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Why should Photo.net waste time in catering to this custom editing? <br><br>If this was the Los Angeles Times would folks ask the newspaper to buy back a million issues so that ones "letter to the editor" is removed? Part of growing up is learning that ones actions are sometimes not removeable.<BR><BR> Removing past comments by one chap can butcher older threads. Just think before one posts, look before you leap. Will your comment add value to the photographic site? Will your comment have value in the future? A thousand years from now some folks will still regret some of their actions, and whine and want somebody to erase history. <BR><BR>If folks really want a programmmer to edit folks past comments; the complainer should provide their credit card to defray the costs of "taking back what I said" at an hourly rate to pay for this "lets edit event". The reality is that what one does in life often cannot be taken back magically. Its a totally absurd request, a waste of Photo.nets' resources.<BR><BR>Examine ones own inner problems of not taking responsibily for ones actions. If this is a roll of film and one opens it up in sunlight you just ruined the roll. If one writes on the web, write to a newspaper, your words maybe around awhile, with no magical way to backstep.

[WJT]

for the reply. It is pretty much the way that I thought the site would handle the material in question, and it seems reasonable enough to me. Would it be possible to have Dr. Greenspun comment about this as well? It is not that I do not trust what you had said, but Philip is the one who wrote the TOU. <p>

Kelly, I think that you might be missing the point on this one. Regards.

[ShunCheung]

I think it is very important that people cannot edit their own posts. Otherwise, one can post something really nasty and then edit it out later on to remove any evidence.

[think27]

Walter - Philip's input would be the same as Bob's comment. Kelly has an important point as well with regard to the policy of not deleting the content of those that decide to leave or those that are banned... The rare exception or two has happened but only when the person was spamming the site and the deleted comments added nothing and did not disrupt the flow of existing threads.

 

You may not be aware of this but we do have a moderator forum and are very aware and very clear about Philip's mindset with regard to the TOU.

[thomas_sullivan]

there is one thing wrong with all this not deleting someone's account philosophy. What if the site changes the policy, to the worse, and the person wants to no longer be associated with it any longer.....in any way shape or manner? He doesn't want to be here...he doesn't want to be associated with the place any longer. Let him go, completely. If he chooses to re-register later, then he can do so very easily.

 

I really don't get the insistence to leave his account in place. Every other site I've been on WANTS those who leave to close their accounts. Yahoo has closed my email account 3 times over the past few years because I only use it while on trips and such. Many websites have deleted me because I no longer go there. other sites email me asking if I want my account deleted because I haven't gone there in a year or so.

 

seems photo net is in the minority with this policy. Actually, i think something else.....but i wont say it.

[bobatkins]

Photo.net is a learning site. Everything you contribute should be with the intent of teaching someone something or asking a sincere question.

 

We can't go around removing content because somebody changes their mind 5 years after they have posted it. It could ruin the flow of dozens (or in some case thousands) of threads. If someone who has posted 10,000 resposes in the forums gets pissed off and decided they want to leave, pulling those 10,000 responses would leave gaping holes in thousands of threads.

 

You can pull your images any time you like. Nobody cares.

 

We do close accounts, we do block people from ever posting again, but in general, what they have said in the past in the Q&A discussion forums stays. That's the only reasonable policy.

 

BTW if Philip disagrees with anything said here, I'm sure he won't be shy about letting us know.

[StuartMoxham]

My only thought would be that maybe some people would like their name removed from photonet when they leave. It would be possible to leave the posts in place but remove the surname. That way the meaning of the threads stays intact and John Smith that has just got a job at a Nikon dealers doesn't have to have his new boss know that he was bashing Nikon on PN for the last 3 years.

[bobatkins]

That would be possible I guess. I'd be OK changing someone's name from "John Smith" to "John S." if there was a good and valid reason to do so.

 

Philip may have a different view. It's quite possible to take a defensible position that you shouldn't say anything here that you didn't stand behind and wouldn't be ashamed of having attributed to your real name. You really should not be posting "Nikon bashing" content to photo.net in the first place. However sometimes it's tough to see into the future!

 

Absolutely the best policy when posting, and something everyone should consider before hitting the "submit" button, is not to say anything that you wouldn't want attributed to your name.

 

Some people use fake names of course, so they think they can say anything and avoid any consequences. Sometimes they are wrong. I know Philip hopes to introduce a "real names" system at some point where user IDs are verified and perhaps verified users will get additional privileges on the site and be able to do things that unverified users can't. A totally "real name" system probably isn't practical, but it's certainly possible to devise a system where there is a real and positive benefit to using your own name.

[thomas_sullivan]

ok....leave their words in the posts, but let them delete their account and remove their pictures. That's a decent compromise.

[bobatkins]

That's exactly the current situation. Users can remove their pictures and delete their account (i.e. mark it as a deleted account) any time they wish to. That's always been the case. As far as I know there are no plans to change that and I don't see any reason to.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...i.e. mark it as a deleted account..."....now, does that just mean a statement saying it's deleted......or is it actually deleted. Like no list of comments they have made appears, no link to to an email addy, no personal info that anybody from the world can see or affiliate with that person (except what they say in a post)? In other words, their words and knowledge remains in the post so it can teach others down the road, but there is no trail that leads to them? That's what I would want if I were leaving a place. Nothing but a name and a knowledge of photography should be left....unless of course they said something personal in a comment.......but nothing but their name on the deleted account page.

[bobatkins]

It's simply marked as being deleted. All other information is still available. That's the way it is. You may not like it, but now you know.

 

You can, of course, remove your biography and any other personal information such as your website URL and email address. All the stuff you normally have access to before you delete your account. However your posting record stays.

[mark_a2]

DELETE MY ACCOUNT!

 

It is such a simple and reasonable request. I actyually should be asking for a refund because I have been having so many problems with the site, yet all my emails have been ignored.

 

Photo.net has broken its contract with me to provide a service, and since it failed, I no longer wish to be associated with this website.

 

I have deleted my photos and some of my info, but the website refuses to allow me to remove my name or email. Why should it have anything?

 

I have read many of the posts here and it seems that if people want to leave and remove any trace of their identity, it should be easy to let us go. The fact is that Photo.net is more concerned with acting like it has more members than it does, by keeping accounts active. I doubt that this delete status is real unless alll traces of my involvement has truly been deleted.

 

Ban? Why keep a banned person's account? Let me see what I wrote above. If the account is banned, then it will fall to the depths of teh database, but it will be still searchable by google and the member count. I see a pattern.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but I just want to leave, and remove my art and hard work.

 

Thank you to those that emailed me to show me that some response has happened, but I see more people that want to leave and very few that want to force me to stay.

[mark_a2]

From teh homepage: "We are now a group of more than 100,000 photographers working to help each other become better."

 

NO, I no longer want to help this site. It seems many other no longer do not, especially after being treated this way. I am sure we all have our reasons, but this behavour is childish. Its okay for me to leave but I have to leave my toys?

 

The truth shall set you free.