Calm down maybe? Regarding complaints about moderators.

[tmcleland]

Is it just me, or have there been lot of gripes about the moderaters, y'know, moderating recently. I'm finding it very curious that people are whining

about "censorship" and "abuse of power" when the moderators do their jobs, by deleting or editing content in order to keep the site informative, or

to prevent it from deteriorating into some teenager's MySpace blog about how ugly and stupid Becky Jackson is.

 

Sometimes, people post very rude comments, dump on people for not knowing something, or even make snide comments about grammar, rather

than just being polite.

 

I like pNet a lot, in fact I may need to join 12 Step program because of it. I get tons of great information and see so much amazing work, and I think

it's a shame that people can't just act like adults and do what we're supposedly here to do; be better photographers, and help others to be better.

 

Combative posts, insults, and snotty remarks don't help anyone, except to stroke the ego of one who feels superior by hurling insults at strangers.

If the moderators feel that such content should be removed, that is their perogative to do so. Why wouldn't they? Can you imagine someone new

to photography Googling "Film vs. Digital" and seeing people going at each other over something that is purely a preference? Does that sound

informative to you?

 

It's odd, if not a little amusing, that anyone could think they should abolish the anonymous ratings system, when they see people reacting to each

other like this.

 

Before you ask, yes I see the irony of me taking the time to write this.

 

Honestly, if this post gets deleted or closed, so be it. I just felt it needed to be said. I just hope there are enough of us out there who want PNET to

be a nice place, where we can learn from each other without the attitude.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

P.S. This is in no way meant as a global assessment of the members of this site.

[lex_jenkins]

Anyone who thinks photo.net policies are excessive needs only to visit a few comment sections below a news story. Any news story, doesn't matter which. It can be about a tsunami, a serial killer, the exchange rate, a hybrid vehicle that runs on hot air. Within a few hours the comments will have deteriorated into bickering about the presidential candidates with a smattering of racial epithets thrown in, relieved only by the comically inappropriate spam for grocery and gas discount cards.

 

The vast majority of photo.netters want adequate guidance to keep things on topic. It works.

 

Cries of censorship make me laugh. You want to see real censorship in action? Step away from the computer, get your head out of the hobby and look at the real world where people are hunted down and intimidated, jailed, even tortured or executed for speaking their minds on issues that matter. Photography is inconsequential to these issues. It cheapens the concept to refer to editing on photo.net as censorship. Only people who can afford hundreds, even thousands of dollars for toys to make pictures have the luxury of thinking that moderation to keep things on topic is the same thing as censorship.

[joshroot]

It is important to remember that the moderators are people too. They put a lot of effort into helping to guide photo.net and keep it on the track that has made it successful for the past decade. And for that fact, I stand behind the decisions they make regarding their moderation duties. But just like you, me, or the guy on the next barstool, they are human. And humans are prone to bad days, mistakes, and misunderstandings. Nothing done by a human is ever going to be done perfectly 100% of the time (and nothing done by a computer is ever going to stay operational 100% of the time). I make mistakes every day, I defy anyone here to claim that they don't do the same. A little understanding goes a long way in the world.

 

Photo.net has moderation. It is what made us different from USENET in the beginning and what has kept us on-topic for the past decade. For every person who is pissed that their post was deleted, there are 10 more who are happy that the forum doesn't allow personal insults or random off-topic threads. It's a fine line, and there are always some people who are going to find the PN policies unacceptable. But that is the glory of the internet, if you really can't stand this site you can go find another that suits you better. And if there isn't another site out there that does what you want, you can create your own site with rules that you decide are best. THAT is what free speech and lack of censorship is all about.

 

Meanwhile, we'll just keep moving along as we have always done. Photo.net is in a really good place right now. We've got programming resources that we haven't ever had before, staff that didn't exist in the past, and more users and images on the site than at any time in it's history. There's a lot of cool stuff ahead.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Well, I posted a legitimate topic on the quality of the HD broadcast image on my analog Toshiba TV in Casual Conversations

and it was deleted. I've emailed Josh and emailed PNET by way of contact through the PNET link at the bottom of this page

and haven't gotten an answer yet.

 

I'm not complaining or upset. I'ld just like to know what the limits or parameters of subject topics allowed in Casual

Conversations because it clearly states any topic within reason. I think my topic was within reason but it may just be a server

glitch. The topic still shows up in a google search but the link shows it's been deleted.

 

An explanation would be nice, but I know they don't have the time to do that.

[Matt Laur]

It's sort of like that old saw about high-melodrama back-biting cloak-and-dagger politics in higher academia.

Specifically, the emotions wrapped around every little thing only run so high because the stakes are so... small.

 

As Lex so aptly points out, cries of censorship on a privately owned, topical messaging platform are absurd. We're

here because we want to be, and moderation is part of the deal. A GOOD part of the deal. Without out it, it would be

a cesspool.

 

I've never objected to any moderation here, but my only complaint (such as it is) is that sometimes it's hard to

determine the context of a moderator's removal of a comment. It makes coming into the thread late a big opportunity

to draw all sorts of wrong-headed conclusions about what everone else is saying (or appears to be saying). I'd almost

prefer to see a deleted comment replaced with a marker.. "[comment from John Q. Photoshopuser removed for off-

topic wisecrackery]" Or not. The place works pretty swell as-is.

[jamesmck]

The recent issue with the Classic forum post resulted from an unfortunate action by an inexperienced individual, and is not typical of photo.net.

[m._howard_edwards]

Thank you Misters Cleland and Jenkins for speaking my mind. Pnet has been one hell of a resource for me for several years in large part because of moderators keeping it sane. We cannot lose sight of what the site is here to do.

[joshroot]

<i>"I've emailed Josh and emailed PNET by way of contact through the PNET link at the bottom of this page and haven't gotten an answer yet."</i>

<p>

I promise that I'll answer. I just get a hell of a lot of mail and I'm the only one who answers it. So I go through them in the order received, usually once a day, usually after I've had a few beers.

<p>

Of course I'm kidding about the beers........<small>yeah...kidding, that's the ticket.</small>

[joshroot]

And it is worth mentioning that yes, just like everything in life, moderating here has a learning curve. Not everyone has been dumb enough to have been involved with this site for 10 years like I have. And even with 10 years of experience here, moderating was different than being a user, being an admin was different than being a moderator, and running the whole damn thing was different than all of them together. I learn new stuff every day.

 

We've got a vibrant, opinionated, diverse, and large community. It takes some time to get into the swing of things no matter what level of interaction you have with the site.

[richterjw]

Becky Jackson really is ugly though.

[bobatkins]

"Well, I posted a legitimate topic on the quality of the HD broadcast image on my analog Toshiba TV "

 

What's the relationship to photography? I don't see one any more than a discussion of the effect of putting new tires on my old car would be related to photography, or what I ate for breakfast yesterday.

[bernardwest]

I'm with Matt about perhaps giving a reason for post's being deleted or threads being closed. Or at the very least, let's have the moderator's step in and give a warning first, perhaps even naming the offending individuals. On another forum I frequent (and one with much lower decorum than this one) this approach usually works. If it doesn't, then the thread is closed - with accompanying explaination.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

That's OK, Josh.

 

Let it out. Let it all out.

 

Now take a shot of jager and step away from the 'pooter.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Bob,

 

What's the relationship to photography?

 

I clicked on Casual Conversations which has a subhead that states any topic within reason. It didn't specify it had to be exactly

about photography. My topic was about "IMAGE QUALITY" of the new HD broadcast mandate that all stations are switching to

and the effects it will have on old analog TV's especially for those that are already paying outrageous cable rates on top of it

all.

 

I rarely post a topic as it is. Sometimes I can't remember all the rules or they aren't as clear for me to know what is on or off

topic.

[lex_jenkins]

Tim, over the years Jeff Spirer has pointed out many times that photo.net is not the only resource on the web and when he wants information about subjects unrelated to photography, he visits those other sites. Seems reasonable.

 

One of my other diversions is radio, primarily shortwave listening. While I may occasionally make offhand references to the radio hobby here on photo.net, I don't expect anyone to answer questions about impedance matching for an antenna or how to QSL a clandestine in North Africa.

 

It's not censorship or stifling of discourse to delete off topic posts or assign a short expiration to such threads. If anything photo.net is more open than ever to off topic conversations, thanks to the Casual Conversations Forum. Even the feedbag forum has become remarkable lenient. Most of the stuff posted here could be expired after a few hours and not be missed, including my own remarks.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Josh just emailed me and stated that it was a close call as to whether my topic was relevant to photography. Now I

understand.

 

Josh,

 

You must type fast cuz you wrote more than I needed to know, but thanks for the consideration. I would suggest when explaining deletions to posters that you might not need to be so thorough. A simple "It was off topic and not within our

guidelines of conversation for this community which keeps folks coming back to Photo.Net." nuff said. I'm not criticizing you,

just offering a more efficient way of responding to emails so you can get to the other 75 emails without exhausting yourself.

 

You work too hard, dude. But hey, nobody's perfect.

[bernardwest]

<i>or how to QSL a clandestine in North Africa</i><br><br>

 

Whatever that is, it sounds interesting!<br><br>

 

This post will self-delete in 5,4,3......

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Lex,

 

I come here for the engineers that drop pearls of wisdom. My topic was answered by one of the informed here just as I

thought would happen. That's why I posted in Casual Conversations thinking that was the forum for such types of topics.

 

I've been to other sites around the web. Yahoo Answers is one of them. Yeah, Yahoo, quite an apt name. They have an

ingenious method of weeding out long, pointless childish debates. They only allow you to post one answer per person to each

question on every subject under the sun including quantum physics. No one can retort back what the other said. It's very smart

but it's no fun and you wait forever past the one line pointless answers for the expert to chime in which often never happens.

 

Photo.Net is quick and there's quite a few retired and semi-retired smart guys from all walks of life and varying fields of

expertise. That's why I posted my topic here.

 

But I'm going to call Time Warner Cable about my concerns to see if their paid technicians could tweak the broadcast signal a

bit and maybe have some answers as to why there's an inconsistency in image quality between channels.

[mike dixon]

<i>I'd almost prefer to see a deleted comment replaced with a marker.. "[comment from John Q. Photoshopuser removed for off- topic wisecrackery]"</i><P>

Unfortunately, that usually "invites" debate about that decision, which would lead to more deletions, more debate, etc. One of the reasons that discussions of moderation aren't allowed in the topical forums is because it's almost never productive. Even if someone asks a reasonable question, and is quickly given an explanation, there are always plenty of others who jump into the discussion with complaints about every policy they don't like or every "wrong" they've suffered at the hands of the tyrannical moderators.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

I wonder if the moderator could create a script that would automatically send a no reply email to each poster whose topic is

deleted with a quick maybe even cut and paste reply from a roster of reasons that address why the topic was deleted.

 

Any notification would help so the poster isn't left wondering if the deletion was either from a server glitch or a moderator's

judgement call.

 

Other than that I don't have a problem with moderator censorship.

[trunfio]

I understand the not posting why it's not a good idea to have a reason posted for why a discussion is closed. It's almost

always pretty self explanatory. I think, though, if it's possible, when a post is deleted, part of the delete process for a

moderator (and I don't know how it works), the system should ask for a reason, the moderator type one in, and an email

automatically gets shot to the original poster. This may cut down on unwanted email complaints. Just a thought.

 

Otherwise, I would not have stayed here had this place not been moderated. That adds a touch of class to the operation

and sophistication not found elsewhere on the web.

[trunfio]

Cross posted... Great minds! :)

[Matt Laur]

That makes sense, Mike. I'm actually not all that interested in some abstract description of why something not

helpful was purged. I guess it would just be nice to know when the missing pieces have - by their absence -

monkeyed up the entire understanding of a conversation. It really doesn't happen very often, so hardly a

showstopper. I've seen moderators realize that an edit has changed what anyone else would understand about a

thread, and say just enough to keep things seeming rational. That's all it takes, when that's what it takes.

[James G. Dainis]

As a moderator, I will usually send an e-mail explaining why a post has been deleted unless it is obvious. If a poster

used one or several of the "seven words you can't say on television", I would edit them out until I got tired of it. Then I

would just delete the entire post and send the e-mail, "Your post has been deleted because of the use of vulgar

language".

 

Most photo.net members understand the rules. A newbie may innocently violate those rules (such as cross posting)

so I like to send an e-mail explanation of why the post as deleted. Or, an older member may get carried away in the

heat of a digital/film Nikon/Canon debate and need a reminder.

[James G. Dainis]

And, if I do delete a post, I will try to edit subsequent posts to remove any references to the deleted post. That can

be a bit trying but I try to keep the flow of the thread on track.