Is commercial sponsorship of photo.net affecting censorship on Photo.net?

[triode___]

I have noticed of late (one equipment forum in particular) that the moderators are very aggressive in

censoring/quashing any rumours/speculation of new products and deleting any discussion on topics that might not

put that particular company's products in good light.

 

I have also noticed that the moderators are invited by the company to attend product launches and shows.

I wonder how much of this affects the ability of the moderators to remain neutral and fair in the discharge of their

duties and with their opinions/biases.

 

Also, how are moderators elected/appointed? Was it by democratic election?

[mike dixon]

Rumor threads have a short life on most of photo.net's forums. There's no lasting value to a bunch of chat about unconfirmed rumors.<P>

 

<i>I have also noticed that the moderators are invited by the company to attend product launches and shows.</i><P>

You're noticing things that aren't true.

[Spearhead]

<i>I have also noticed that the moderators are invited by the company to attend product launches and shows. </i><p>Examples?

[Hector Javkin]

This is Philip Greenspun's site. We're all his guests or in, some cases, employees. So it's not democratic. BTW,

I'm a guest, so I'm only giving you the little I know.

 

Ellis Vener and Bjørn Rørslett were at the D300 and D3 product launch as Nikon's guests, but I don't think either

are moderators. It was helpful to the rest of us that they were able to bring back information.

 

Most of the product bias comes from material that is too old. The guide to building a digital SLR system was

written when Canon was well ahead of everyone else. Now that Nikon has (mostly) caught up, and in some areas

surpassed Canon, and other manufactuers have improved, the article hasn't changed. It takes work to do that.

 

When photo.net was free -- no ads, no membership fees, but costs were becoming prohibitive, I hoped that it would

go membership fees only, to maintain neutrality. The worst thing is that ads sometimes appear for rip-off

photography shops. Photo.net had no control of the ads when I last noticed.

[Spearhead]

<i>This is Philip Greenspun's site. </i><P>This site is owned by NameMedia, Inc., not Philip Greenspun. Those are not moderators, as you said.

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"I have noticed of late (one equipment forum in particular) that the moderators are very aggressive in

censoring/quashing any rumours/speculation of new products and deleting any discussion on topics that might not

put that particular company's products in good light."</i><p>

 

Only completely unsubstantiated rumors with absolutely zero basis in fact. Actually, I'm surprised at how

lenient most moderators are regarding rumors. It runs the risk of alienating manufacturers and distributors. Do

you really want photo.net to descend to the rumor mills that actually go by the names nikonrumors.com,

canonrumors.com, etc.? You should realize that the purpose of those avowed rumors sites is to build up hits for

personal gain by the site owner, not to disseminate even remotely accurate information.<p>

 

In my experience photo.net moderators and members welcome substantiated, documented information and news from

credible sources. Such reports should always be accompanied by links or other specific attribution to the source.<p>

 

<i>"I have also noticed that the moderators are invited by the company to attend product launches and shows. I

wonder how much of this affects the ability of the moderators to remain neutral and fair in the discharge of

their duties and with their opinions/biases."</i><p>

 

I've never been invited to any such functions. David Carper once sent me a couple of trial rolls of Pan F+ when

he was still with Ilford, several years ago, after I'd reported having difficulties with contrast and obtaining

full speed with that film in certain developers. That's pretty much the only industry perk I've ever received,

but many manufacturers and distributors occasionally send out small samples upon request.<p>

 

<i>"Also, how are moderators elected/appointed? Was it by democratic election?"</i><p>

 

You should read Thomas Paine's comments on democracy.

[joshroot]

Photo.net moderators have nothing to do with the advertising on photo.net. And the advertising has nothing to do with what is allowed on the forums. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a long stroll through the reams of negative forum threads on any subject.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that moderators are invited to product launches, because it isn't true. At least not photo.net's moderators. If other moderators from other photography sites are invited, then perhaps our moderators shuld look for a better gig. Because they aren't getting that kind of treatment here.

 

Moderators are chosen by the past or present site administration.

 

Thread closed.