Is forum traffic dropping?

[jenkins]

<p><strong>I am still under the 15-forum cap, so there is room for some more.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Yeah Off Topic for lunatics and renegades.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I think Brian makes a good point about site fragmentation. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Most young people spend just as much time on FB and Instagram as the retired and semi-retired spend here. It's not about how much time, it's about what the time is used for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, can you provide a link to an FB page of young photogs having a discussion that's more interesting and compelling than what's here on Photo.net? I've looked and looked but have never been able to find a discussion that goes beyond your typical "great shot/really inspiring" exchanges and the FB privacy settings don't let on to the real ages of the participants as well.</p>

<p>It appears from your level of authority on the subject you've found a way to locate FB stats I can't seem to find. How do you know the ages and quality of discussions on FB? How do you find them?</p>

[tim_eastman]

<p>I think there are life cycles to all forums. Many of my favorite forums have slowed to a crawl. Interest peaks and then subsides. Ironically, the Off Topic topics ( note, especially guns ), probably generates a great deal of traffic, something advertisers like!</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Jeff's rigth of course but there's more. There's too much yapping about equipment (if not downright fetisjism) and far too less photography.<br>

There's too much facetious name dropping but knowledge about contemporary photography, let alone the history of photography? Few and far between.</p>

<p>Too many people here are too dependent on a pet on the back as if that matters at all. Paired with no interest at all in constructive criticism which should and does matter.</p>

<p>And I'm an optimist. Go figure.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, can you provide a link to an FB page of young photogs having a discussion that's more interesting and compelling than what's here on Photo.net?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I didn't say there were discussions. I said they spend time. They share photos and look at them. They have strong feelings about what they are doing and showing rather than endless discussions about equipment. <br>

<br>

I know the ages of the people I am connected to, which range from 18 to 80. I see what they and their friends are posting. I am also on Instagram occasionally and see things there. It is usually easy to tell by what they post. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ann Overland was good for traffic, if nothing else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's a good example of how traffic can be useful or not useful. </p>

[EricM]

<p>Agree with Jeff, you can't blame FB. Especially when other sites like tumblr, flickr, 500px, et al have flourished at the same time as FB. PN has been on the decline since Phil and Brian fiasco of 2006'ish and people discovered Flickr. Today, a little too late, the idea and use of forums is a dying.</p>

<p>PN interface is horrible and creates too much anxiety for new users: get a friend to make an account and have them TRY to upload photos and navigate through the user panel. My gosh. If that isn't tricky enough, try doing PN on mobile. I search Google for a ton of photo stuff and PN rarely comes up in results. PN is not geting new users or traffic that way.</p>

<p> </p>

[starvy]

<p>Some of the members are responsible for this in being unfriendly to new members. It can be extremely daunting for a new photographer to post here. I appreciate that there are double posts and times and simply the same question being asked, members have a duty to the community to refrain from being unfriendly.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>And what is with not allowing to link to other images? What is the difference between a link and actually seeing what that link is. Talk about arcane. This forum is one step above what usenet used to look like.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I spend most of my time here on Classic Manual and Modern Film, and with the Nikon and EOS forums for digital (non-collector) equipment. Not to mention No Words.<br>

I look at some of the non P.net sites that seem to follow some of the suggestions above, and there are few pictures and the discussions look like merely chains of tweets. <br>

If you want pictures, go to No Words and the critiques. There is a place for hardware (and software) discussions too. </p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Brian,<br>I know that people think that copyright is arcane, that everything on the net is free to all. ("Pirates" they call themselves. A good choice.) But it isn't.<br>Embedding a picture in PNet through an image-tag is publishing that picture in another context, outside of the original publication. Which is in violation of copyright law. Directing people to the original publication is just that.<br>If you would elect to make all of your stuff on the net free for all, that's your decision. But it is not arcane to respect other people's different choice.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Brian, as Q.G. described, photo.net's policy evolved to cope with some specific real world issues regarding reproduction of images:</p>

<ul>

<li>Some photographers and artists don't care whether you've copied and pasted, downloaded and re-uploaded or embedded a link to their images that shows their images on another site. If the image appears in <strong><em>any form whatsoever</em></strong> other than the method chosen and, in some cases, specified by the the photographer or artist, it may be considered a copyright violation.</li>

<li>Embedding photos hosted elsewhere may impose costs on the remote host's servers. This may impose an unreasonable burden on photographers and artists who struggle to meet expenses while also maintaining a reasonable internet presence.</li>

<li>Photo.net doesn't have the resources to determine whether usage of photos, images or documents complies with complex international copyright and fair usage laws. So photo.net's policy is very simple and easy to understand: Upload, attach or embed <strong>only your own photos</strong>.</li>

</ul>

<p>The fact that the rest of the interwebs plays fast and loose with copyright and fair usage doesn't make it right.</p>

<p>Despite my own personal opinions regarding the remix, re-appropriation and overall culture of re-interpreting art, intellectual property and pop culture, I respect photo.net's policy. It's not that difficult. I compartmentalize my behavior to suit the venue. Again, it's not that difficult. I used to be an amateur boxer. I confined my sparring to the gym and fights to sanctioned bouts. I didn't go around randomly hitting people claiming "Fair usage!" or "Mike Tyson does it! Why can't I?" We all compartmentalize our behaviors. That's how polite societies function.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I search Google for a ton of photo stuff and PN rarely comes up in results."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering whether Google's filter bubble and other factors are at play here. Photo.net usually figures prominently in my photo related Google searches. Might be differences due to geographic location, browser settings and other privacy functions.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I said they spend time. They share photos and look at them. They have strong feelings about what they are doing and showing rather than endless discussions about equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, how do you see that in a browser page? Do they post pictures of themselves looking at each other's uploaded photos. If they're not saying anything, how do you know they're there.</p>

<p>Or are you looking at a browser page gallery wall and seeing images pop up on screen, a new image with each poster?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Please take a look at DPReview.com's legal and copyright page: http://www.dpreview.com/misc/termsandconditions</p>

<p>They make it very clear that you are not allowed to "hot link" their images to display on web pages outside of DPReview, for reasons exactly as Q.G. and Lex pointed out.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Photo.net usually figures prominently in my photo related Google searches.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, could you give me a search term you use so I can try it in my browser? None of my New Braunfels (my home town) tagged Photo.net gallery images still don't show up in a Google search after embedding tags in them a year ago.</p>

<p>But uploading them to the Wikipedia New Braunfels gallery section and entering "New Braunfels" as the google search terms has its wiki page show up on the first page.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Facebook is just a very different vibe from photo.net or any regulated discussion forum-type website. Social networking isn't parasitic - it's symbiotic. If you haven't tried it, go in without any expectations or preconceived notions. You may be pleasantly surprised.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that there are no moderators, per se. Other than Facebook's faceless, nameless complaints department, any moderation is up to your own wetware or software. If you have difficulty overlooking unmoderated opinions, download the Social Fixer add-on for Firefox. I use it to divert certain posts to tabs for browsing when I'm in the mood and have time.</p>

<p>It's actually quite liberating and I've generally enjoyed a more open give and take with some of the same folks I used to butt heads with on photo.net. For whatever reason, the less restrictive flow of Facebook and Google Plus may offer what some folks say they're missing on discussion forums. It's a challenge to our personal senses of the differences between civil conversations, one-sided rants or filibustering, and genuinely democratic or even anarchic exchanges.</p>

<p>In my personal experience and opinion, folks who think they want the latter - unregulated, free or non-violent anarchy in expression - actually want usenet or anonymous image board type venues like 4chan. True pseudonymity or anonymity can be liberating as well. But be careful what you ask for. You may get it. If you're using a pseudonym here on photo.net yet still find yourself attaching some unwarranted value to your opinion based on purported experience for which you cannot or will not provide any evidence due to concerns about privacy, well... you only *think* you want genuine anonymity online.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> If they're not saying anything, how do you know they're there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If you use Facebook, you should be able to understand.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Who wants to bet nothing will change here as a result of this thread?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I'd like to hope a few attitudes change. </p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>In fact, the Philosophy Forum reminds me of the local coffee shop. The retired and semi-retired have a section they dominate, sometimes arguing and sometimes just discussing, but the young people don't go there. It doesn't really grow, it's the same people for years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps philosophy simply doesn't appeal to the younger photographer, and many others as well. The nature of the OPs are from my experience miles beyond most old fogy chat in your coffee shops. Most of the chat there isn't that much different from than a boring client you sit not far from in a restaurant and who spends all his time asking his wife what else should he pick up before going home or some similar profound discussion.</p>

<p>Perhaps the presence of some members in the PofP forum over the years is because this is a subject that inspires them and to some degree drives their photographic approches and art, or their fascination with the human process of conception. Photo.Net should perhaps make some real effort to get new photographers more engaged in such discussions, as the survival of this rather unique forum, and some other Photo.Net forums, is an identifier of Photo.Net and what sets it apart from other photo sites.</p>

<p>Complaining about the personality or interests of some members is no solution. Photo.Net is a pretty democratic, civil and interesting place. We are responsible for making it better, but that takes individual personal efforts and not boycotting forums because we believe they are frequented by those we may not agree with.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex, could you give me a search term you use so I can try it in my browser?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll need to try minimizing the Google search bubble as a factor. It's possible my ISP and browser settings are showing me what Google thinks I want to see.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Who wants to bet nothing will change here as a result of this thread?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Believe it or not, photo.net is largely member driven. <em>Be</em> the change. Be positive. Be consistent. If the change is compatible with most members, the change will happen.</p>

<p>There is a flip side. If you're pessimistic, inconsistent, or selfish in proposed changes, the change may not succeed.</p>

<p>A good example of positive change are the various weekly photo threads on many forums. Those came about as the result of positive, consistent and consistently positive and selfless efforts by individual members. Their efforts were inclusive, not exclusive, and intended to encourage participation, not to be one-person shows.</p>

<p>Examples of unsuccessful efforts at change were usually attributable to unreasonable expectations of immediate success; failure to consistently set a positive example; making threads one-person shows rather than invitations to embrace as many participants as possible.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Photo.Net is a pretty democratic, civil and interesting place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like a place for people who are old and don't have anything else to do. Once again, it's not generating new traffic through those qualities. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>not boycotting forums because we believe they are frequented by those we may not agree with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Did someone say they were doing that?<br>

<br>

Look, it's simple. The typical 22 year old is not coming to photo.net. A forum like the Philosophy Forum is a romper room for mostly older guys. That's not the way to inject new blood into a site, and it certainly doesn't help generate the advertising revenues that are essential.</p>

[EricM]

<p>Lex for President.</p>