Jump to content

Photo.net Jan '08 user survey...


joshroot

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone,

<p>

Got something to get off your chest? Hate a part of the site so much that you

want to scream? Think I am doing a terrible job? Want to tell us that you love

everything about photo.net? Then do us a favor and fill out the <a

href="http://www.photo.net/survsimp/one?survey_id=102">Photo.net 2008 User Survey</a>.

<p>

The goal is to find out some information about the photo.net user base, and to

help us direct our resources at the most important problems and projects.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/survsimp/one?survey_id=102">User Survey - Click Here</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I should have made that clear. The responses will only be viewed by the admin staff. And at the moment, the responses are "anonymous" even to us. I won't lie, it is likely possible for us to go in and see who left what comment. But that's not our goal, we just want to get some feedback from our user base.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Josh, Right off the bat - and I have no idea why - but Photonet has to be the *slowest* loading site I visit regularly, bar none. Even at 4:00 am EST it loads like a slug, so it's not a time-of-day thing.

 

I'll click on the "Forums" link and it can take a good 30-45 seconds (sometimes much longer) to load a page of... text. I'll then visit *any* other website and Bang! *All* the others load many times faster, with graphics, without exception.

 

I have a DSL connection and am not on dial-up.

 

I've tried deleting cookies, dumping my cache, changing browsers, nothing seems to help. I just can't figure it out why and thought I'd let you know... I'll go take the survey now.

 

Thanks for everything you guys do - it's still a great site! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beau, it could be your ISP. Reportedly, some ISPs are engaging in deliberate slow-downs to discourage users from accessing sites that strain resources. There are proposals by some ISPs to bill customers who are high users of P2P services. Comcast has been accused of deliberately slowing down P2P access.

 

So if your ISP is one of these tricksters *and* it regards photo.net as a peer-to-peer site or otherwise making high resource demands (possible, depending on your viewing habits, such as participating in the critique forum), the problem might be on your end.

 

The only time I experience frequent slowdowns is trying to access my own photo.net workspace page. Otherwise the occasional slow-downs are no worse or more common than with other sites. Certainly nowhere near as bad as some blogs and, in particular, myspace, which must have the most inefficient interface on the web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q11 seems to assume all of your respondents are in the USA, and to clear that up, it would be interesting to know how many people are where. Maybe add that question? I know you could probably work it out by processing the web logs, but I'd certainly be interested to find out.

 

I know the site is US founded and run, but I suspect it has a very broad international readership. Most of the US posters in forums seem to assume everyone is in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"I noticed landscape wasn't one of the photography styles on the list."</i>

<p>

While we aren't trying to offend anyone, there was a limit to how many different genres we could reasonable list. We had to draw the line somewhere or it could have been 100 different choices. I think landscapes fits well enough into "nature/animals" or simple "other".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"I also noticed that the only type of film camera choice is 35mm"</i>

<p>

What question are you looking at Rachelle? For question #6 I see choices of: 35mm, medium format, and large format. In all honesty, while there are other film formats, their number of users is small enough that they can be grouped in "other".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a look at the survey and I didn't fill it out because I couldn't leave out the parts that make me/us marketing targets, like age, sex, income, what brands of equipment I use, etc. I'm still curious how much it would cost us members to make up for the loss in income if advertising were eliminated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...