Is forum traffic dropping?

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>people will prefer sites like Rff, apug or some equipment specific sites, or will engage with blogs like that of Mike Johnston otr Luminous Landscapes.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br>

Most of these sites are very low usage sites and can't generate the ad revenue. Only Luminous Landscapes comes close to photo.net, but its forum traffic isn't generating the hits. APUG, in particular, has terrible stats and even getting the film forum traffic from photo.net wouldn't bring them into the top 15 million sites.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see the PNet system of photo uploading as particularly clunky.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br>

Try Facebook or flickr. The difference is obvious in two seconds.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't sound like you read the forums much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said I usually come in get what I need and leave. Most of the topics I research have great answers stretching back years... long before smartphones were common. And in the more modern threads I read I have never seen anyone telling someone who only has a cell phone camera not to shoot. There are extremists on both sides of that issue. That's just life on the internet. Most people are in the middle and give a pretty balanced honest opinion. Frankly one of my biggest issues with this site is the number of times someone will ask a perfectly good question or someone will give a perfectly good honest answer and like clockwork someone will pop up and say "It's not the camera it's the photographer." It's just such a meaningless utterance at this time. Camera, photographer, location, subject, lighting all contribute to most images. Why when you mention a camera or lens some people go into convulsions is beyond me. There are times when noobs make the mistake of thinking a particular effect or image is only obtainable with one piece of equipment. But in those instances over the years I've seen plenty of knowledgeable helpful people show up in the thread to explain how to get the effect with the equipment the person has already.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I will continue to visit, unless things change I'm not really inclined to contribute any more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ronald, I would encourage you to continue to contribute. If for nothing else it benefits posterity. This forum has been most useful to me because of searches. Asking questions hasn't really been all that necessary for me. I don't generally reply to threads that were started years ago. I did not know if that practice was frowned upon. I know threads aren't "bumped" here but I still didn't know whether posting a thanks would serve much of a purpose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm often disheartened when I read advice where the poster shows none of their work. How can you trust what they are saying is based on any real experience? Maybe they're a blowhard. Especially if they're not using their real name. Even if there is experience, the purported process recommendation on whatever may not be your cup of tea. But how do you know unless you can see the results of their recommendation and make up your mind whether to try their suggestion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, have you ever been shopping before? When I go into Lowe's and ask about a particular DYI product I don't ask to see a picture of the guy using it. You evaluate statements made on this forum the same way you would in any other venue in life. This is the only place I have ever been where someone would honestly say to your face I haven't seen your pictures so I am going to discount what you say. I'm not saying you've ever done that but I have seen others that have. Man, that is so rude and bizarre.</p>

<p>More importantly a lot of the picture Nazis, who I consider the real blowhards, post images that prove nothing. Really in addition to a statement on the home page that says "get a contract" there should be another equally large and bold statement that says "a shrunken 500 pixel image that has been beaten to death in photoshop and had massive amounts of sharpening applied is basically useless for evaluating lenses, cameras, tripods, etc." You may get an idea of the artist's photoshop skills or talent in picking subject matter and composing an image but that is basically useless for a lot of what is being discussed.</p>

<p>You just have to use common sense. If I read a statement about the subtleties of TMAX 100 shadows vs Acros I pretty much ignore it. Even if someone submits scanned images unless I know the whole work flow and they got drum scans of the images it is doubtful whatever is being said is going to be relevant to me in any meaningful way. Just let those people argue. And likewise if someone tells me noise is not an issue on their cell phone camera and they show me some shrunken photoshoped image I just ignore that. The fact they posted an image doesn't make it any more worthwhile than the TMAX 100 vs Acros guy with no image. That's one of the reasons I like DP Review. They post full resolution images in standard setups and take the photographer out of the picture so you can objectively analyze gear. They've saved me tons of dough and plenty of anxiety by having a good scientific workflow and showing constantly upgrading equipment is simply not necessary these days.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"While I find this an interesting read, I think that the wrong people are</em><br /><em>contributing. The people here are those who are still active on the site.</em><br /><em>I'd like to hear from people who do NOT post anymore, and find out why they</em><br /><em>don't."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Those active on the site long enough can tell us equally why others don't participate. What's lacking isn't some special insight, rather the site clearly defining its well developed business and operational objectives, sicking to it, and plowing ahead to achieve it. </p>

<p>There are many good suggestions in this thread and most of the problems mentioned exist on every site. It's not an easy nut to crack and P.net would be on the wrong path, in my view, if admins were influenced to appease the disgruntled and to steer its path toward being all things to all people. </p>

<p>There are some simple things the site can implement to greatly benefit its culture beginning with a "Be Nice" policy that is clearly spelled out and encouraged, and where offenders are nicely addressed off-thread. The business of the abrupt closing of threads, banning members, and publically posting <a href="/off-topic-forum/00bGcs">downright insulting followups</a> just doesn't sit well with most people even if they had nothing to do with the conflict, and should never happen. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>A big problem these days is people dropping terms like "nazi" for online forum postings. It's an indicator of how low discourse can go.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>I read the following forums: Alternate cameras, Modern film cameras, Canon FD, Off topic, Classic manual cameras, Casual photo, Medium format, Large format, Film + processing, B&W film.</p>

<p>When I do ask a question I get few replies and most are not satisfactory answers. When I do offer advice it is more often ignored or discounted. I no longer offer advice to newbies who ask what camera to buy when they say they have an interest in a particular model of camera and want to hear opinions because the only opinions they want hear are people telling them what a great choice they are thinking of buying.</p>

<p>I like the Classic forum but it gets tiresome hearing people be amazed that film cameras actually could produce photos or people spreading urban legends about film speeds being so slow in the "old days" that the cameras were limited in features when, in fact, 80 years ago there were cameras with 1/2000 shutter speeds and f1.5 lenses. Not to mention the "cover your red window with tape" nonsense. Add to that the tiresome people who own one old camera and think they have bought into an exclusive club of some sort that entitles them to contribute when they have little to share knowledgewise.</p>

<p>I use these forums to keep up with trends as to which way things are going film-wise, etc., but I must say this website is a poor "dipstick" for such data. I must say I wish I knew which website is driving the trends so I could hang out there instead because, in playing the used film camera market, the trends of what is selling "hot" one month to the next on the big web auction site is totally missed or not noted on this website.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's interesting that this is one of the busiest threads on the site. Every time a "what's wrong with the forums" appears as a question it's the same. This isn't the first thread on the subject and it certainly won't be the last. The common theme is that there is no common theme. Get 100 posters, get 100 opinions on what is wrong (or occasionally what is right).</p>

<p>I'm not sure there is an answer. I'm not sure you can ever have a forum that's polite, on topic, provides accurate information, is interesting to read and is also high traffic. The two don't mix well. What you need to generate traffic is lots of arguments, disagreements, wildly incorrect statements and people correcting them, along with speculation and rumors and the ability of posters to include pictures of their cat and their favorite quote from Nietzsche. Basically the more you allow people to shout "LOOK AT ME", the more they will shout "LOOK AT ME" and the more traffic you can generate.</p>

<p>My favorite quote from Menken{*} runs along the lines of "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public". I think what that means is that the "lowest common denominator" will beat the "highest common factor" most of the time. Quantity beats quality. The average Twitter post or Facebook page pretty much supports that (see, I got in a dig against Facebook <em>and</em> Twitter!)</p>

<p>How do we "fix" the forums? I have no idea. I guess the question presupposes that the forums need "fixing". I'm not so sure that they do. Any "fix" will probably annoy as many users as it pleases. I also suspect that anything that significantly increased traffic, while it would obviously please the newcomers, might not be exactly what most of the current forum participants would wish for.</p>

<p>If I had a cat, here is where I'd post its picture.</p>

<p>{*} actual quote is - <em>Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.</em></p><div></div>

[jenkins]

<p><strong>If I had a cat, here is where I'd post its picture.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Bob as in your recent post in the Off Topic Forum we now know you'd cook it!<strong><br /></strong></p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Actually I borrowed Schrodinger's cat, but it's still in the box (or maybe it isn't...)</p><div></div>

[tom_cheshire]

<blockquote>

<p> "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that explains the success of Lensbaby lenses. Or, should I have said Canon and Nikon? Or digital?</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>If you are losing ground and defending the status quo with a closed mind I think the world will pass you by. PN is losing ground. Some here are defending the status quo. This defies what I have learned in actual practice associated with a very successful, nationwide technological and cultural change a few years back. You are navigating your cars with it and it is now being used in cameras. The American Management Assoc. has studied hubris driven corporate failures and has case histories of the effects of monomaniacal entrenched thinking. These problems have caused some significant major corporate failures. I hope the new management here brings some fresh thinking and new ideas to this site. Selfishly I would like to see it survive and grow. The most telling suggestions I have seen here involve consolidation and defragmentation of forums, enabling up to date and simple picture posting, and placing more emphasis on newcomers so they feel comfortable and stay and bringing more actual participants on board. This is a start. I would hope also that some emphasis would be placed on gaining participation of a lot of those who visit and don't participate. There are some big numbers there. It is really a small cadre who authoritatively dominate some of the most popular forums. My question is: does the less active large membership exist to support site use of the few who are very active? The major question also highly important is how to make the site more attractive to advertisers. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I can’t answer the question directly, since this is a matter of statistics, but I will say this: if a newbie posts a question, the chances are very high that he/she will get either a sarcastic supercilious reply or one that goes into microscopic detail which the OP will never read, even if he/she were capable of understanding it. The chances of getting a short simple answer which is useful are pretty low.<br>

I feel I can say that whenever possible I try in situations of this kind to give short to-the-point replies based on 45 years of professional media experience, including quite a bit as a workshop leader and technical author on photography. Half the time I regret doing this, since there seem to be a lot of people here with unknown levels of experience and knowledge and a powerful compulsion to trash the opinions of anyone they disagree with. This makes the impression on newbies that PN is inhabited by grumpy old farts! The golden rule in pro photography is – a good picture is one that fulfils its intended purpose! That’s the ONLY rule, but one which amateurs have the most excruciating difficulty in understanding!</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It's interesting that this is one of the busiest threads on the site. Every time a "what's wrong with the forums" appears as a question it's the same."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, I think the reason is responding participants really do care about the site's future. No one will invest their time and effort into something that goes nowhere and that includes every member of this site as well as NameMedia. <br>

<br>

The only meaningful site statistic to me is the number of paid subscribers and its trend over the years which is obviously confidential and not made public. As a barometer of participant loyalty, it can also serve as an indicator of whether the site needs fixing and by all accounts, it does. <br>

<br>

We spend $25 a year here by choice when there are infinite numbers of sites that will gladly take our money, so naturally there will be expectations that P.net will at least put in an effort to address. It also costs typically 10x more to get a new paying customer than it does to keep an existing one, so keeping existing paid members happy not only makes good business sense, it'll also likely please and attract newcomers. <br>

<br>

As for site restructuring, I wonder if one ought to go back to first principles to reexamine photography as an industry in the context of gear evolution, evolving consumer preferences and what they are really looking for to satisfy their needs. Having one forum per category sounds logical, but how many actual topics can any category generate before fatigue sets in, and how will the site address that? <br>

<br>

It also seems curious that a supposed premiere photography site will contain as many off-site links as I see in many forums here. It tells me that the real information already exists elsewhere or has been discussed extensively and here's where you go to learn more. <br>

<br>

If nothing else, it's lots to think about for this site to regain and maintain its relevance in a world not standing still and filled with high quality content. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I've been involved with forums since the early 1990s. I organized the rec.photo USENET groups "back in the day", so I'm clearly a dinosaur, but an experienced dinosaur I guess.</p>

<p>The problem with forums is and always has been that everyone wants to read interesting posts, but few are actually capable of making them. There's also the issue that you can make any forum you want, but you can't make people post in it. I'm not at all sure that "defragmentation and restructuring" forums helps much and it presupposes that the forums are fragmented and badly structured in the first place. I don't think they are.</p>

<p>Photo.net's strengths are also its weaknesses. It's more diverse in coverage than most sites. Find somewhere else that has an active gallery section, people discussing wet chemistry darkroom techniques, people discussing old mechanical cameras, people discussing the latest digital innovations, people discussing the philosophical basis of photography, equipment reviews, tutorials on techniques and so on. You won't find one. Photo.net is different things to different people.</p>

<p>You can also ask the question as to whether or not the forums are the heart of the site. I wonder what fraction of people who view photo.net participate in the forums? How many just stay in the gallery section? How many just read the articles and reviews? Are forums in fact the most important part of the site? Do they generate the most revenue? Just because they are the most visible part of the site to anyone participating in this discussion doesn't mean that they are the part of the site that needs the most attention.</p>

<p> I refer you to the the parable of blind men and an elephant - of which Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant)<br>

"<em>In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

The site (i.e. the owners of the site) first have to decide what they want the site to be and that has to be a goal with a reasonable chance of being achievable. It can't be all things to all people, especially in an ecosystem where there are so many alternatives and more photography and social networking websites coming online each day.</p>

<p>Minor or even major tinkering with the forums isn't really going to affect site traffic much and it probably won't even affect forum traffic much. I suppose if we wanted more forum traffic the thing to do would be to abolish moderation and start forms devoted to discussion of such things as:</p>

<p>Canon Rumors<br>

Nikon Rumors<br>

Why Film is better than Digital<br>

Why Digital is better than Film<br>

If Nikon and Canon had a fight, who would win?<br>

Why cellphone cameras suck<br>

How Photoshop is ruining photography<br>

and so on.</p>

 

[James G. Dainis]

I don't think I'm quite ready for this:

 

(cyberqueen) - Hi, I have to show you this really cool camera I found ...

 

http://assetsw.sellpoint.net/_acp_/302/623/asset/image_408660/1-Hero.jpg

 

I mean it is small and cute and that red color is awesome not like those big clunky BLACK cameras that photo nerds use... UGH...And it is 16MP which is a lot so it takes really good pictures and you don't have to do anything and just point it and press the shutter thingy...

 

================

 

(2gd4u).- You are so totally right about that... I got one and don't do anything and you can tell who the people are in the pictures and everything... I mean like sometimes they do look a little funny colored but hey what's the big deal... I bet none of those big ugly cameras could do any better anyway... I'm glad none of those old guys are around anymore always talking about white balance ... whatever that is ...and shutters and apereatures (sp?) and stuff that no one cares about anyhow...Hey, I just want to take pictures, okay?

 

================

 

(im_de_man) - Right on!

 

================

 

(cool_dude) - Sweet!

 

================

 

(hot_hotty) - Like a big ugly camera is really going to make any difference. Geez what jerks.

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I suppose if we wanted more forum traffic the thing to do would be to abolish moderation..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've actually wondered whether we should give that a trial run. Leave the Casual Photo Conversations and Off Topic forums essentially unmoderated - at least free of routine daily oversight. If there are serious problems, members with the "report spam" ability could flag posts for moderator attention.</p>

<p>But otherwise, anything and everything goes - no limits on rumors, no limits on gratuitous versus threads, no limits on any topic of any kind as long as it's photo related for the Casual forum. Otherwise, everything goes to the Off Topic forum. A few designated members would have the ability to report abuse, which would be limited to overt spam, porn and death threats. Otherwise, participants enter at their own peril and assume all responsibility for resulting butthurt.</p>

<p>It would eventually become more like YouTube comments or some of 4chan's less noxious boards, like /p/, /tv/... anything but /b/. Some folks might enjoy the daily free for all saloon brawls. Others would eventually be alienated by the inevitable sexism and gratuitous cussing and insults.</p>

<p>Members who prefer moderated forums could still find refuge in the other existing forums.</p>

<p>It'd be an interesting experiment.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>It sure would be an interesting experiment. Lex, and my prediction based on the average observed intellect and maturity is that a self-policing forum will work out just fine. </p>

[EricM]

<p>The interesting experiment would be to allow members to make their own forums and mod them how they see fit. That's beauty of FB, Flickr, and G+ and why they have robbed readership from forums. </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>There is a definite 90s feel to the layout of the forums here. It's fine for those who have been here since the Paleozoic era of the Net, but it ain't going to attract anyone under 40 IMO. Plus, the vast majority of chatter is by middle-aged guys about lenses. Kind of gets old after a few months, let alone decades.<br>

I have to refrain myself from answering questions <a href="http://bit.ly/W6S4hT">like this</a>. So instead, I just stay away these days. The only bright spot for me is the Thursday Canon thread which has a lot of great photography. I prefer to play around on my own FB photo page. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The Canon EOS forum is carefully observed but moderation action is very rare. Some months there are no moderation actions at all. Seems go quite smoothly, but perhaps that's because most of the forum participants recognize the bounds to stay within and are reasonable people. Perhaps it's because all the really smart people use the Canon EOS system. Who knows,</p>

<p>Short of actual abuse, there's really no need to moderate posts, no matter how dull, boring, obvious, repetitive or stupid they may be to me. Presumably they are interesting to the people posting them.</p>

<p>As for middle aged guys talking about lenses, that's photo.net's demographic. They're probably the ones with the money to buy them too.</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>... the vast majority of chatter is by middle-aged guys about lenses ...</em><br>

Er ... yes! I think it's time I was going ...</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Everyone talks about lenses; just that the younger guys talk amongst themselves because they aren't assertive enough to spar with the middle-aged guys in an open forum. :-) </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>It's still about "this is the way we've always done it". The loose definition of entropy is the decay to failure of a system that receives no fresh input. Someone was right about the nineties feel to this site. The site, IMO, needs fresh thinking to allay the slow but obvious entropy that afflicts it. Bob Atkins I am not middle aged. I am a young eighty but I have managed enough change over the years to know that this site, to quote Boehner, needs to get off its collective ass.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I could list make up a list of less than fifty posters that dominate the most active posts on PN. They jump on posts as they come in offering authoritative and sometimes very useful advice in the "which lens is better topic" and others. They also fight among themselves even at the most sophisticated level. They also, at times, belittle and look down upon and ridicule less sophisticated posters. This is bad for business. Many times they raid a thread with a sarcastic one liner and then leave. I believe they dominate the culture here; both good and bad.</p>

<p>What I like about PN are the sane and thoughtful posts by those who know a lot about a given subject. I like to hear photographers speak from their own experience (I learned this in Dale Carnegie) rather than spout wisdom from on high. There are some very thoughtful people here. They are a treasure that you don't see so much in other fora. These are the ones I have learned from. To cite one who doesn't post much anymore it is Ellis Vener. Another is William W. He takes the time to educate and he has the bona fides to do that.What I like most about PN are the posts from people who are thoughtful and who try to educate rather than those who seem to want show how smart they are.</p>

<p>Others, on occasion, spoil and hijack threads to fight to the end to win some obscure point. What I don't like are authoritative unsubstantiated opinions about equipment like "x lens blows y lens out of the water".</p>

<p>I have gained much from this site. I spent several years managing a large project. It had my overtime, dedication and took a lot out of me. There came a time when I had to give up because with delays and funding problems it stretched out into obsolescence. I had to admit that I had given a few years of my life to something that would never see the light of day. I went on to manage the successor project which has now, after my retirement, seen the light of day. What I am saying it is hard to give up on old ideas and it hurts to do so but in the PN case I think change is essential. It just does not have the mass appeal of the competition in its present form. I think PN needs a gradual and thoughtful culture change. Again, I hope the new management is up to it.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Can you cite a popular photography forum with a high traffic volume that doesn't have people giving authoritative unsubstantiated opinions about equipment like "x lens blows y lens out of the water"? It's part of the culture. It's the "LOOK AT ME" syndrome. I don't think there is anything you can do, any change you can make, that will result in a popular high traffic forum that <em>doesn't</em> have such posts - and many od them.<br>

<br>

We would all love a forum in which everyone posted interesting information, where everyone was polite and where everyone posted after careful thought about the subject under discussion, but that's about as unlikely as getting congress to actually vote on anything these days. Much as we would all like it, it just ain't going to happen.<br>

<br>

Doesn't mean we can't try, but expecting a culture change may be wishing for the impossible. It would certainly be possible to have a <em>small</em> "invitation only" forum where everyone was interesting, but it would be <em>small</em> and it too would eventually die from lack of new blood.<br>

<br>

Can you point to any high traffic popular forum anywhere on the Internet that you'd cite as an example of how an ideal forum should be? A forum that's the PBS of the Internet?<br>

<br>

Have you read the DPreview forums for example? Very popular, lots of traffic, but...</p>

 

[jenkins]

<p>Execute me in cold blood if you like but...<br>

Having some kind of "Like" button on a comment wouldn't go far a miss, make it a film canister. It would mean people valued a information as correct and answered the OP question. </p>

<p>This might be helpful in the Beginners Forum to show relevance? </p>

<p> </p>