Your vote is your voice: The number of photos you want in the POTW

[leo_papandreou1]

Right, one picture per person but Wednesday's Pic regularly garners 200+ replies. There are many more Nikon than Pentax users. I was being facetious when I voted for 10 but if we had the same 1/person rule then this week's POTW would be 23 pictures long. We have a small intimate forum where individual people can share a mix of styles and subjects. Why throw that away -- to learn portfolio management? Are you kidding me? Photography is a hobby for most of us or an adjunct to other interests.

[trw]

<p>1 image in the thread, if you want to post more, post a link. The thread is too long to see everyone's work.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>I'd say post any number you like, as long as there's a combined maximum pixel count of one million pixels. (Per person, I mean...)</p>

[bobbuck19]

<p>3 cause I dislike change</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Maybe what we could do is encourage hyperlinking. If you have more, like for a special event or something, you could always make a folder in your account, and then just put a hyperlink to that folder in your post.</p>

<p>For example, instead of organizing my posted photos just by topic, I uploaded a set of them and said, "This is my folder for the month of May." Like this: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=908893</p>

<p>Instead of hyperlinking to a picture, I just cut and paste the folder address. I go to the portfolio, I click on the title of the folder, and a web page opens up that has just that folder's contents displayed on it. Copy/paste that URL into the thread, and you're set. You can make a folder with just about any name or any reason on photo net. Maybe something like that is the solution, so we don't bog down the slower connections.</p>

<p>I guess if we did it this way, you could have one photo in the thread, but still reasonably display however many photos you wanted, using the folders.</p>

<p>If there's one photo in the thread, then everybody gets to see some; if that photo is followed by a hyperlink to a folder, then people can see more if they want.</p>

<p>How's that?</p>

[htarragon]

<p>John,<br>

Not good for me for several reasons<br>

1) I like scrolling through the pictures in the thread.<br>

2) The pictures are an integral part of the thread<br>

3) Backing and forthing would drive me crazy after about 10 responses<br>

4) Looking throug 10, 20, 30 portfolios would be tedious and take the enjoyment out of the thread. If we wanted to do that we could go to Pbase.com.<br>

5) Commenting would be nearly impossible due to the number of pictures. The conversations would become untenable whereas they are now still fun.<br>

Of course, the "little intermissions" of failed posts lengthen the thread but they give our eyes a rest :-) .<br>

Howard</p>

[shaloot]

<p>I thought we weren't allowed to post the html of our pics from flickr (for eg)? I used to do this, but then noticed that my post would disappear... I really like this method since most times I'm at my lunch break and so can access my flickr account and then paste photos here.... so I guess it's back on, and since I haven't been participating in the potw thread, I missed it!</p>

[snik75]

<p>I like 3 but I can live with whatever. Excessive fretting about rules is no fun, though, and the argument of "it takes my computer too long to load this thread I want to look at so please change the thread" doesn't quite ring true to me.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Referrals to specific sites (like flickr for example) aren't really ever blocked except in cases of abuse. So unless you ran into that sort of thing, I'm not sure where your posts would have been disappearing.</p>

<p>The one thing I dislike about people posting images hosted at flickr, is that frequently they forget that they have done so and delete the image at some point down the road. That leaves photo.net with a bunch of ugly "This image no longer available" boxes all over some older threads. I wish non existant images would just disappear or show the small standard "broken HTML" icon rather than the big "FLICKR: when images are deleted, we turn the space into giant ads for ourselves all over your site" stuff. Such is life.</p>

[jaophotography]

<p>2, it would be quite short with only 1 per person. Just remember, everyone, to post your best.<br>

-Jon</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Yeah, this is some sort of urban myth. I thought perhaps I was lacking in knowledge of site policy, but since Josh sets site policy, I feel a little less ignorant.</p>

<p>I've never had a photo from flickr not appear on here, or photobucket or picasa. I think people might forget that if they change the photo, or change permisions on flickr that the URL changes. Unlike photo.net, on flickr even if you hit the replace button, your photo URL changes. I've done this thinking it wouldn't and sure enough it does!</p>

<p>The best thing I can say as advice if you are linking to flickr is just upload a new photo and keep the old one. I believe you can set it to Friends and Family viewable and it will still have the same URL. This should hide it in your stream, but also leave it viewable on the net. This eliminates those annoying image not found blank boxes, while also hiding an old image in your stream (unless you make everyone Friends and family which is kinda stupid anyway).</p>

<p> </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>Excessive fretting about rules is no fun</blockquote>

<p>Word.</p>

[beerbrain_ronny_perry]

<p>I vote for 2</p>

[hagar]

<p>Just to add my two cents on the subject.. <strong>WHY </strong>does it have to be a rule? Why not have it as a <strong>guideline</strong>. I mean what are you planning on doing if you set the rule at 2 and somebody posts 3 one week? fine them? ban them? I don't think that any of that is in the spirit of this Pentax forum, or Photo.net in general. It does not make sense! Just make it a guideline that the number of shots to post in the Picture<strong><em>s </em></strong>of the Week is X. I think most of the members here are adults :-).. and if someone feels like posting an extra one shot that week.. so be it. He'll just have to live with the guilt till the next POW starts! lol.</p>

 

[htarragon]

<p>I like it! Guidelines, like we have now, which are mostly followed, but sometimes not. Makes us feel like responsible adults who can govern ourselves.<br>

Haig, you are brilliant. It only took 69 posts to get to that point. Wish I had thought of it. Let's see if the mods bite.<br>

Howard</p>

[mc2imaging]

<p>2 points:</p>

<p>#1. Sites like flickr and photobucket are blocked at work, so I don't see the pix on a page where the images are served from a site like that. Not that it matters to me, because at the big T, p.net is blocked too.</p>

<p>#2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> How comes people give up freedom so easily for nothing in return?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the promise of 'hope' and 'change' my friend...</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>My thought is that it is "photo" of the week, implying a singular photo (your very best photo of the week), which would be the letter of the law. In the spirit of the law, seeing two would not make me think that we are reverting to anarchy.</p>

<p>When I've posted to POW in the past, I've never included more than three, but it has varied between one and three. From here forward, I'll stick to the spirit of the law and respect one submission, but if I deem it necessary, maybe sneak in a second.</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Here's the "wednesday" only picture thread rules at nikon forum.<br />They allow one picture thread a week there, no picture of the month or picture of the day threads. As I pointed out earlier, canon forum has No picture of the week threads:</p>

<p>"<em><strong>Moderator's note:</strong> Piggybacking onto Jose's post to add guidelines for benefit of our new participants. I'm seeing a few oversized photos, so here are a few tips:</em></p>

<p>Just a few rules and guidelines for the weekly Nikon WedNEsDAy PiC threads:</p>

<ol>

<li>Some sort of Nikon equipment </li>

<li>One photo per person </li>

<li>JPEG only, resize to 700 pixels maximum width, less than 300 KB in file size </li>

<li>In the caption, please specify the equipment used </li>

</ol>

<p>A few basic guidelines:</p>

<ul>

<li>Recent photos are encouraged but not required, since film photographers usually need more time to prepare. The goal is to encourage activity, but not mandate it. </li>

<li>We don't set themes (that would duplicate photo.net's excellent <a rel="nofollow" href="../no-words-forum">No Words Forum</a> ). </li>

<li>Keep the photos safe for work or school viewing, using your best judgment. </li>

</ul>

<p>Most of all, join in and have fun.</p>

<hr />

<p><em>1. Camera, lens, Coolscan scanner, etc. Fuji dSLRs w/ Nikon F-mount are accepted too.</em><br /><em>2. Photos hosted off-site on your own site/blog, Flickr, smugmug, etc., can be attached using standard HTML. Captions won't be centered but otherwise the photos will appear normally.</em><br /><em>3. Oversized photos will appear as links but won't display inline with the thread.</em><br /><em>4. Camera, lens, anything interesting, etc. Some folks may be interested in other details, exposure, etc., which is usually included in the EXIF data, but isn't essential to these threads."</em></p>

[mike dixon]

<p>In my experience (and other people have noted this too in discussions in another forum), if I'm presented with a long series of images from one person, I tend to just scan through them very quickly to see if there's anything interesting. If a person posts a single image, I usually give it a closer look, even if it doesn't "jump out at me," to try to see why the person chose that image.</p>

<p>As with conversation, saying less will often make you more interesting (and command greater attention) than someone who talks a lot.</p>

[jbevans]

<p>2 photos</p>

[wtlwdwgn]

<p>3</p>

[gib]

<p>1</p>

 

[peter_engel1]

<p>Let common sense dictate what ever that is. I look forward every week to POW what ever the number.</p>

[ed_yuen]

<p>I vote three (3).</p>

[dawsonjm]

<p>I had to go out of town and almost missed this vote!</p>

<p>3</p>