Poll: Should LF Forum stay with Photo.net?

[mottershead]

John, yes there is a cookie, if you enable it. You only have to login once on each system that you use, if that is what you want.

[mottershead]

Tito feels that "the moderator" removed an answer from

a thread on the old system. I'd like to respond to that.

 

(a) We only moved the threads from LUSENET up to June 2. After

a few more days, the LUSENET administrator turned off "New Questions"

in the forum there, but replies to questions continue until yesterday, when the forum started to be redirected here. We were

planning on moving the messages posted from June 2 until yesterday. Perhaps Tito's "deleted" message is one of those, and it will show up here.

 

(b) So far as I am concerned, QTL is moderting the forum. During the first two days, I moderated it and I deleted two messages from Tribblett, which were insulting another photo.net member (specifically, me). Those are the only messages that I know of which have been deleted unless QTL has been deleting messages.

[jonathan brewer]

Stay at least for a while, because that's what everybodies going to do anyway, and in addition to a vote, come up with a list of what you want, submit it to Brian, and see what he will and won't do.

 

The moderator had six months thereabouts to be decisive before this came about, so what and who is different in the mix, where it's going to be worked out now? It didn't happen then, how is it going to happen now?

 

Come up with a list of what everybody wants, and the let Brian state what he can and will/will not do, instead of crying about where the 'old gang' went. I don't care what you do, YOU CANNOT GO BACK TO THE PAST, even with a move from Photo net. which a lot of you want, it won't be back like it used to, that's life.

 

I'll start the requests.....Brian what about the cookies you have to let into you box....how can we do something about that? Every time I let cookies into my box, I get another 10 spams everyday, what can you do?

[mottershead]

wayne, if you read through that read you will find that you did "vote": at least I interpreted your cheering on Josh Wand's efforts as a NO vote; so when I counted 29 YES, 19 NO, you are in the NO's. Some of the votes were judgement calls since people didn't make their positions clear. Going through it again, I could have called one or two of the "non-votes" incorrectly. It might have been 29 to 20 (or maybe 21).

 

The earlier July 2000 vote is irrelevant because at that point the question was: "Do we stay on LUSENET or moved to photo.net". By the far the majority of people wanted to stay on LUSENET, which was not at that point planned to disappear.

[psychophoto]

I just would like to see this forum be wherever everybody is

active again like things were before the move. Whether that

means just getting used to things here or moving to a different

home again, I don't know.

[brian_ellis3]

Yes. It seems to me to be working well, what's the problem? You don't have to remember a password and log in every time. The first time you joined after it moved to photo.net, when you were asked for an e mail address and password, there was also a question asking if you wanted that information saved so that you didn't have to provide it every time. If you answer that question "yes," then all you have to do is book mark the site and click on it when you want to get in. You won't have to type your e mail address and password every time. But more importantly, I didn't think it was up to the people who participate to decide where it goes, I thought that was up to Tuan since he's the one who has started it and has handled it from the beginnning (at least I thought he was).

[wayne__]

The earlier July 2000 vote is irrelevant

 

 

---------

 

 

I dont think it was irrelevant at all. Q-Tuan states ( in his recent personal statement, referring to the thread where you tallied "the votes", as you call them) (!) " This was not meant to be a vote, since one had been conducted a year and half ago..."

 

There might have been another vote taken by Tuan back then (theres a broken link in one of those threads, which seems to point to a poll), in addition to the July 2000 "vote" I referred to. Tuan did not initiate that July thread, but whichever one we refer to, except the one last December which was not intended to be a vote, the results were the same.

 

 

Anyway I dont want to keep flogging this dog forever, I just think the vote issue was settled long ago, and if someone can override that its got to be Q-Tuan. I also will reiterate that if we are going to go elsewhere, we need to do it very quickly before the "community" we want to preserve disintegrates.

[mottershead]

wayne, QTL should chime in and say where the "year and half ago" poll is, so we can all look at it. In the later December 2001 thread, he points back to a July 2000 thread (a year and half before) which is a vote on "should we stay on LUSENET or move to photo.net?" The outcome of this was clearly "stay". By December 2001, staying was not an option, and the question posed this time by QTL was, "should we move to photo.net, or should we move to an alternative like yahoo?" That thread was much longer than the previous one, and the outcome, if you would like to check, is clearly in favor of photo.net. I think even a lot of the people who favored "alternatives" mentioned that photo.net would be OK or said that it would be there second choice.

 

We can have another vote here, as long as Erik has started this thread, but I'm afraid that the results will be inconclusive. There seems to be a very vocal anti-photo.net group, and they seem to be the ones interested in these discussions. A lot of the other posters are just participating in discussions of LF photography. I'm not sure what a vote in this thread against photo.net would mean, and if it goes in favor of photo.net, it won't silence the opponents since they will only say the vote was rigged or the rest of the opponents are refusing to log into photo.net.

[mottershead]

I should add that the photo.net decision-makers have been trying to have a meaningful sounding of opinion on this issue, and if we can come up with a way that will have representative input and not be subject to the charge of being rigged, we will conduct one and abide by the results.

 

And if we can't come up with a meaningful way to get input, the nay-sayers may get their way. Because, quite frankly, we're getting fed up with the amount of time this forum is taking and its starting to look like more trouble than its worth.

[bob.]

The one thing I did occasionaly miss in the old Lusenet, and now at photo.net is a plonk filter... to be fair, it is not ofen needed here due to the generally high quality of posts, but just *occasionaly* I do miss it...

 

Perhaps the guys writing the new software could incorporate one?

 

Cheers,

[bob_finley]

IF the old LF Forum could have been maintained I for one would have preffered that. But it of course isn't and we are the benificiaries of Photo.net and Brian's hard work to keep A site available and I vote stay. Photo.net can get a little uncivil on the unmoderated forum but I think if you look back at say MF forum you will find a different attitude that is more what we can expect.

 

I don't really worry about the site being sold to Megabucks.com, but then again I have never been able to contribute much of value that anyone would want. I certainly have benifited from the vast knowledge of many contributors and hope they will continue.

 

Bob

[jnanian]

even if we wanted to move to a different site, that was not full of

advertising, and the owner of your words after they are typed, it

isn't going to happen. it has been a week or 2?? that isn't

nearly enough time to really know what to expect, and what will or

will not become of this forum.

i think we should just stay here and enjoy the ride for a while.

[jonathan brewer]

'And if we can't come up with a meaningful way to get input, the nay-sayers may get their way. Because, quite frankly, we're getting fed up with the

amount of time this forum is taking and its starting to look like more trouble than its worth'...............Brian,.....loosen up,...there are plenty of threads that say give this a chance, the LF forum was/is great because of who participates, it's called the LF forum, not the 'Q.T. Luong private forum', not the 'only the folks who shoot landscapes forum', it is the property of everybody who participates, you can have a moderator, but he doesn't own it, WE DO!

 

Brian....and to anybody else, some folks are not going to participate, what else is there to say, I don't think you should be working up a mad because of who is going away, I would like to see participation, so in the spirit of that, if you are fed up with the accusations, stop responding to them.

 

My ex-wife talks a lot of shit about me, do you know how long I take to consider those comments while I'm in the arms of my present wife?

 

The Photo-net. however things ended up here, is the reality, 'couddaa, woudddaaa, shouddddaa' doesn't mean anything, it's venting frustration, lamenting the past, righteous indignation over how the last six months were wasted, it doesn't really have anything to do with you, unless you prove them right.

 

Being on task for everybody would be to COME UP WITH A LIST OF SPECIFIC, NEEDS AND ASSURANCES, with Brian going down the list WITH Q.T. Luoung TOGETHER instead of INDIVIDUAL SNIPING. Q.T.Luong, to be honest, I don't like how you moderate, because I don't beleive you are decisive, BE DECISIVE NOW, GET ON THE HOT SPOT WITH BRIAN AND THE TWO OF YOU ANSWER, SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND WORK THIS OUT.

 

 

There is going to be no alternative to this forum on photo-net for quite some time anyways, so we have no choice, MAKE THIS PLACE IN TO WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE, with Q.T. LUOUNG and BRIAN working this out TOGETHER.

[_____133]

"A lot of the other posters are just participating in discussions of LF photography."

 

They are wise and I am not. I plan on doing just that.

[mottershead]

Here's some interesting data. The last three days the number of postings in this forum, on photo.net have been: Thursday 151, Friday 102, Saturday (so far) 111.

 

This is considerably higher than the average daily submission rate for the past two months. In fact, Thursday's total of 151 is the third highest of the year so far. Even if a lot of these were "What should happen with this forum?" discussions, it is still pretty encouraging. After a few initial slow days, the forum may have caught up and even be surpassing the former activity level, although three days is perhaps a bit too soon to tell. When some of the folks who haven't made it here yet slope on over, we might start setting some records.

[squareframe]

> My ex-wife talks a lot of shit about me, do you know how long I take to consider those comments while I'm in the arms of my present wife?

 

Amen, Amen. how about everyone pushing their keyboards aside, taking a deep breath, unglue your fstops from f64, and do some LF (you supply the acronym equality) photography. heck, I live in Cannon Beach, one of the most photographed coastlines in the world, and there must be a perspective of Haystack Rock and sunset that hasn't been captured. be nice ... and you can stay at my beach house.

 

peace

[michael_briggs2]

I have several reactions to this poll.

 

A request for views was already conducted, starting on 2002 Dec 5: "THE FUTURE OF THIS FORUM - PLEASE READ", asked by Quang-Tuan Luong:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0036RK. Skimming the responses, the preferences were for a independent server and software to replicate the greenspun.com site, or for photo.net. The first didn't happen, even in six months. A lot of the responders were for photo.net as their first or second choice. It seems to me that most of the LF Forum community finds photo.net acceptable.

 

I fear that this poll won't accurately measure the views of the community. If there is to be a poll, it would be better if the questions were asked either by Quang-Tuan Luong or by Photo.Net, or even better by both. With an unofficial poll, members of the community aren't sure whether they should respond. I nearly didn't. Given that a move had to occur, it may be that a silent majority supports the move to photo.net.

 

I don't think that the current poll makes sense unless viable choices are listed. The issue can't simply be yes/no to photo.net for the LF, but rather photo.net or X or Y or Z. The choices should be options that actually exist, not: "something just like what we had would be nice".

 

My fear is that this furor about the move to photo.net will damage the

community. In the worst case the community might split into three groups, some participating at photo.net, others somewhere else, and some leaving the community. Let's not let a hypothetical better situation be the enemy of a good situation (photo.net)--let's try out the new home. If people are still dissatisfied in a month, I suggest that they request Q.T. Luong to post an "official" poll. We need to give some time for problems with the transition to be fixed (like recovering the missing posts from June 2 to 14) and just time to try it out.

 

There seem to be a few people adamantly opposed to photo.net. Others have a few objections. I second Jonathan Brewer's suggestion that the latter make specific and concrete suggestions.

 

My vote is to stay. I think photo.net is a good site, and if we go back to discussing LF photography will be a better one.

[ed b.]

The reason that not as many people are posting, at least on the forums that I moderate, is that the alerts have not been migrated yet. I didn't realize how many people relied on the alerts to keep up with what is going on .

[james___]

Two problems I come across here that weren't as bad at Lusenet. This forum is hard to find. It is not evident that we are here at all when you enter PN. And PN isn't always up and running. Many times I try to enter PN and I am unable to enter. I personally liked the old lusenet system but that is a non issue I guess. I would like to see this forum in plain view as soon as you enter PN so others looking for us can find us. There seems to be a lot of paranoia about being exposed to the general public. I don't think it is that big a problem compared to being readily visible to new LF users or those LF users that haven't run across us yet. The old gang knows that we have moved here but if I were new to LF I would not know that this forum existed just by drifting into PN. I have sent people to PN telling them what a wonderful resource this LF forum is and they come back and ask me where it is. Must be some way of being more visible.

[gary_meader]

Being a relative newcomer to the forum, before the move to

photo.net, I truly enjoyed myself there as I do here. As has been

posted, let's stay here for a while, talk about LF and be glad that

the site exists at all.. I'm sure we're resourceful enough to come

up with good alternatives if the need truly arises.

[edward_burlew]

I have been participating in the large format forum before and since the change, also i have participated in the hasselblad forum on photonet. What will eventually drive me away is the cumbersome and slow response in the photonet forums. I have on several occassions tried to post comprehensive responses in the last two weeks on both forums and at th time I hit Confrim the message was lost, I was frustrated and gave up. This is a consistent problem with photonet together with the aggravation way the drop down tollbar always drops down and screws up the screen and the ability to make choices.

 

So I vote we move to a convient and substantial board, look at the other parts of the photonet boards and you will see that the boards eventually go very quiet and become dumded down. The frustration of trying to post and then loosing the post and then the slow response time and the censoring by the moderator will eventually kill this forum as well. The other large format post list on photonet is now nothing more thatn a buy an sell listing and is a true waste of time. I predict that thsi will be the future of this forum .

This forum has been unique adn very valuable in the promulgation ofthe old ways and new approaches to film.

The ease and reliability of posting and a high quality of posting will lead to sucess. Just look at some of the request messages placed in the last week and see the lack of responses. The forum is already in atrophy.

[sal_santamaura]

Jonathan Brewer thinks Tuan doesn't censor enough and Edward Burlew complains that Tuan censors too much. Erik X. observes that being a photo.net volunteer is tough - - I think Tuan's job is just as thankless.

[squareframe]

Edward,

 

the forum is what we, the participants, bring to it. bring nothing, get nothing. enjoy large-format photography and want to express and share this passion? contribute, enlighten, absorb.

 

another key is to not post anything you don't consciously want to offer to the world free of charge and encumbrance. you apparently have some technical issues unique to your enviroment, as posting and cookie-served logins seem to work fine.

[dan_smith]

I will leave the decision up to Tuan, it is his forum. I do wish the damnable sign in dance would go away though. Having the post go straight in without the sign in and double clicking stuff was a lot nicer & kept the thought process on track better when formulating thoughts for a post or answer.

Then we have the moderator/censor question with photo.net. Too much gets cut at times. With LF it is more a case of lack of knowledge if we go with this type of 'moderation'. Will those who occasionally review posts still be the same LF guys or will it be the photo.net guys who are not as familiar with LF concerns & then censor posts with valid questions while they may not sound right for the 35mm crowd? (Yes, I shoot a lot of 35mm also)

Then we have the real problem of sticking ones head in the sand when it comes to even putting up the name of a major auction forum..E-Buy. Put that in and see what happens. Take away the censorship and make what has been a good forum a lot better. Many of us buy or sell there as we have found it is a heck of a lot better than the photo.net classifieds. So let us post the name & not worry about it.

 

I think Phil Greenspun has done the whole photo community a great service with his page and applaud his efforts. I liked the LF forum as it was. Good information & discussions that at times were worth reading even if you had no interest in the topic. Lets keep that & see if we can tweak some of the gripes so this forum is one a lot more people like to visit.

[mottershead]

Dan, since you've been on photo.net long enough to make 2400+ postings (which must be a record!) and get the hero icon, I'm surprised that you don't know that you don't have to sign in every time. You don't have to keep signing in if you check the box at the bottom of the login form. This will keep you logged in, at least on that system, until you click "Logout".

 

Also the moderation policy in each forum is decided by the moderators of the forum, meaning that QTL will decide what gets edited and deleted.