Sad to say, after 13 years of greatness . . .

[philipward]

<p>Lets see,one hour per day on photonet (yeah right!) 365 days a year@ $25 = 6.8 cents per hour. So what was the original problem?.Oh yeah your sad.</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Confidence in PN's future. What about life membership for $250. I'll go for that.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>To Bob, Lex, Photo.net, et al,</p>

<p>I've been hanging around here for quite awhile, I like photo.net a great deal and I'm a well trained photographer with 6 decades of experience, 450 magazine articles published, some inventions, films, stills, catalogs, national ads etc. 4 or 5 days in each week, I try to contribute things to help others.</p>

<p>Hang in there guys,</p>

<p>Lynn </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You won't find better, more tastefully thought out come back lines and rhetoric than here at Photo.net. Just read this thread.</p>

<p>It's the Berkley U. of photo sites just without the tree hugging condescending attitude and the B. O.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<blockquote>

<p>Man, I sure hope that wasn't it. My goal with those things is just more communication with the PN community.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was only speculating, because Steve's original post was ambiguous and coincided with an equally ambiguous post in the Twitter thread that went something like this... </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sh!t</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm paraphrasing Steve's quote from the other thread because I didn't pay attention to how many "A"s and "H"s there were.</p>

<p>It's not like the ads just showed up here last week.</p>

<p>Steve, your philanthropy is wonderful and I'm sure that your contributions to the community over the past decade actually <em>do</em> entitle you to a little venting. I know they don't just give out those little hero icons. I guess I just want to understand why you're so pissed off. I'm new here so I can't compare what we have now to the '<em>Phil Days</em>' but I paid for my membership and will do it again based on what is here now. I paid because despite the fact that I try, I feel like I've gotten much more out of PN than I've given back.</p>

<p>P.S. I read every post in this thread.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>Jeff - You are the rare exception and certainly a gentleman in all regards. And if you read every response than you know I was simply venting in frustration.<br>

I miss a lot of things. I am not pleased in the direction our society is heading - nor where the world is heading. I should have just kept quiet. Carry on, Jeff. It will be your world, not mine.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Jeff:</p>

<p>In the world where I work, one "aw crap (censored)" erases 10 "attaboys". Maybe it's the same with PN. </p>

<p>Anyway, as a relative newcomer to PN (due to re-up in May), I haven't found the ads intrusive at all. I just try to ignore them. </p>

<p>Matt:</p>

<p>You're right on the money (bad pun). Subscribers are the life blood of PN. Sad to say, sometimes ads have to supply transfusions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As Ole Bill (WW I reference, never mind, it was before my time too) said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If yer knows of a better 'ole, go to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[<a href="http://www.olebill.zoomshare.com/">cartoon of two soldiers in a shell crater on the Western Front</a> ]</p>

[Leroy_Photography]

<p>I haven't noticed an advertising nuisance on Photo.net. I think PN's commitment to improving and growing this site is exemplified through the NUMEROUS hours the moderators spend in talking with members and subscribers, looking for new IMPROVED ways to branch out or streamline, and keeping it a place where photographers (both amateur and professional) can meet, share knowledge and techniques, critique, encourage, or just shoot the bull. I for one am truly grateful for those members who spend endless hours helping answer seemingly endless questions about photography. Many of those who have chimed in on this thread have been an immense help and encouragement to me. <strong>I’m very familiar with Bob, Shun, Michael, Lex, John, Ralph, Oskar, David, Matt, Elliot, Bernhardt, Harry, Simon, Gerry, Josh, Charles, Robert, Steve, and JDM because they all participate on this forum on a regular basis and many have been helpful to me personally. I for one appreciate them. <em>Thanks guys.</em></strong></p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I have to disagree with you Steve, you should <em>not</em> have kept quiet. For one, I'm very pleased with the level of dialog and passion this thread has generated. For another, our society will continue to deteriorate into oblivion if we all just keep quiet. I may not agree with your opinion and in fact, as it pertains to your original post I do not, but I would not begrudge you the opportunity to express it. If the world is going to change for the better it will need people with the experience and passion to affect those changes, people who remember the way it used to be and can teach a new generation to embrace what we were not here to see. And perhaps, there is something we can teach you in return. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not pleased in the direction our society is heading - nor where the world is heading.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Close to 70 years ago, John Steinbeck was probably sitting at his desk, the clickety-clack of his typewriter spilling out beyond the confines of his study, and he was probably thinking the same thing when he wrote...</p>

<p>"It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second." - <em>Cannery Row</em></p>

<p>Michael, I think that's just part of human nature. We have a propensity for complaining much more loudly and much more frequently than we compliment. It's unfortunate.</p>

<p>I am very grateful for the contributions not only of those mentioned by Laura but to all of the people who devote their time to PN, from the person who joined this afternoon and allowed me to answer their question to everyone who has answered my often ascinine and/or poorly conceived queries. I am grateful.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>

<p >When I joined Photo.net some 9 years ago, there was a lot of good photography going on, less "Compu-Art". And the topics of discussion were wide and varied with lots of good info, less categorical moderation and hardly any influence from sponsors as to content.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But after awhile, this site failed to do what others were doing, the creation of a user searchable photo database that made it easy to get to what you were looking for based on key wording or tagging in the case of Flicker. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So what happened is that after awhile, the photoshop it till it dies as a photograph craze took over. So the best that P.net could do was to create a little box that allows the person uploading the photograph to select "This Image is Unmanipulated" or not. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >While that is cool, there is no way to filter a search on the site based on that simply little toggle let alone the hundreds of criteria that other sites allow you to engage in. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So since I really want to see photography and not "Bored IT tech on lunch break" computer art, this site fails badly at being a great place to see actual photography.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Instead, one has to wade through hundreds if not thousands of "images" to get to photographs. Flicker just blows the doors off of this site in terms of image viewing efficiency and ease.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I still come here because there is great information in the current and archived sense. But Photo.net truly is not all it could be and that is a shame..</p>

</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>By the way, they do listen to people here even if they don't act upon it in every case. Not long ago, I complained to an admin that the site search function came up with the "Adorama Store" option first instead of the site. Within a week, it was changed back.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Photo.net missed the boat on image tagging. There is no doubt about that. We went through a period of years in our history where we simply did not have the resources to improve and evolve the site in the way that we should have.</p>

<p>Now, the good news is that sometime this month, the image tagging system will be live on photo.net. And I think we have made some great headway in the last two years in upgrading a lot of different parts of the site. Sure we've still got a lot to do (*cough*ratingsandcritiqesystem*cough*) but still, I'm proud of a lot of the stuff we've been able to do.</p>

<p>And quite frankly, the manpower and programmer time to make improvements like this comes from the increased revenue from ads and sponsorships. There just isn't any way around that. As a user, I'm happy to put up with ads and sponsors if the site survives and improves because of it. As an admin, I find it to be crucial (because, you know, I wouldn't have a paycheck).</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>And the topics of discussion were wide and varied with lots of good info, less categorical moderation and hardly any influence from sponsors as to content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do have to take issue with the allegations alluded to in this aspect of your post.</p>

<p>Any honest historical research will show that there are far more topics and far more varied subjects today than in 2000. They may not be the topics that you PERSONALLY are interested, but your sweeping statement is incorrect. In 2000, there were very few scanning threads, very few digital threads, almost no digital darkroom threads, the OT forum didn't exist, the classic cameras forum didn't exist, the pentax forum didn't exist, and so on.</p>

<p>Moderation is the same as it's ever been over the history of photo.net. There was moderation 8, 5, 4, 2 years ago and there were people who hated it and people who loved it. Photo.net is an edited and moderated place, without it the place would turn into USENET (something photo.net was created to specifically avoid). At some point there is probably going to be a moderation action you don't agree with. That's life. Nobody agrees on everything. But I know of no high quality community that has survived and thrived without moderation. Save USENET or 2chan I suppose. But one can make a real argument that neither of those are "high quality" in any way.</p>

<p>I would like to see current examples of this "influence from sponsors as to content" that you are claiming. I'd also like to point out this thread from back in the supposed "golden years" (2001) that brings up that same tired allegation:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=001QdQ</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Josh, when I went back to edit that out, time was up. I agree that the topics are as good today as they were then, I'm sorry that came across differently. As to the other part of that statement, that is the part I should have edited out. There is dialogue that was told a couple years back somewhat in confidence that I am not willing to divulge on any level at this point, even privately, so I should never have went there..</p>

<p>As to the upgrades that will happen, that is great news and will help a ton! So thank you for all your hard work, I look forward to how it looks then.</p>