Three things I'd change about PNET:

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, and P.net is also a <strong><em>gear</em></strong> site, as well as a photo-gallery site, a technical-methods site, and just about everything that I care to read about concerning photography. It has the the advantage that you don't need to go to the sections than you don't care about, or that are annoying to you because your mother dropped an Olympic Sonnar on you when you were an infant.</p>

<p>As I said, before, many of the other sites have the depth and breadth of a continuous chain of "tweets". If this site goes that direction, it's a path that many of us will not follow.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>These discussions don't go anywhere. For everyone who thinks that change A would solve all the problems, there's someone else who thinks it should be change B and someone else who thinks both A and B would be a disaster.</p>

<p>The Unified view of the forums gives you extensive customability. You can pick and chose which forums you want to see posts from and which ones you want to ignore.</p>

<p>The problems of the forums (if there are any and which I've yet to see defined) are unlikely to be cured by restructuring, renaming or consolidating.</p>

<p>If you want to talk about something, try defining the problem. You can suggest combining the EOS and FD forums is a good idea, but what problem does it solve? If you say it reduces the number of forums, why is that necessary? If you say too many forums is confusing, explain how people are generally confused as to whether to post a question in the FD forum or the EOS forum.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I wish it was easier to look back at older posts in a section. When I was new here, I wanted to read the older posts, but when you scroll to the bottom of the page, you just get the bottom of the page, not continued here (with a link). <br>

And I don't think the number of sections is bad. It makes it easy for me to just check the ones I'm interested in. I was a member at a mom's forum that had probably 60 visible sections and another 10-15 that were hidden - you had to ask permission to get access (one of the reasons I left).</p>

[Gup]

<p>I always consult the Unified View page when I come here. Originally I programmed it to show me the forums I was most interested in, therefore I'm not concerned how many other forums exist here. They were all created for a purpose at some point for some interest group and I respect that. However, to be honest I did try to update my Unified View page last week and couldn't do it. I've either forgotten how or that feature is gone. Perhaps someone could clue me in. I wanted to add the Phone and Mobile Photography forum which didn't exist all those years ago. A forum I want to see flourish, that Josh helped create, that other members here have mentioned they wish existed! (in the other thread).<br>

To answer the OP:<br>

I would like NO advertising for paying members. That almost seems a no-brainer.<br>

A right-click feature to protect against copyright infringement. I understand nothing will prevent someone on a mission but it would deter some less larcenous borrowers.<br>

I'd like to see a similar feature to the 'like' button used at Facebook utilized in our forums. I think the poster's name should accompany the gesture. I think this would encourage the participation of many who otherwise would just read the post and leave without a trace. This might be more beneficial than an 'ignore button' as the poster and readers would soon see which way the majority leaned.<br>

I personally like the W/NW forum and weekly photo threads, too. I would like them even more if posters were required to include the technical data for their contribution. I'm always interested in the equipment used and settings chosen when particularly impressed with someone's results.<br>

I will still visit DPreview for information regarding equipment and industry news, as I always have, but have no interest in their 'free-for-all' style forums. For reviews I find them to be unmatched and I look forward to their newsletter. The P.net newsletter often remains unread in my inbox for days. </p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>As I said, before, many of the other sites have the depth and breadth of a continuous chain of "tweets". If this site goes that direction, it's a path that many of us will not follow.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Add a dedicated macro forum.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Ignore user super easy solution...<br>

<br />When seeing the name of the user at the top of the comment, don't read the comment. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>It's interesting that while many here have posted actual <em>ideas</em> about what could make PNET better, a few can't even see the purpose of the discussion.</p>

<p>It says a lot about that particular few.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It says a lot about that particular few.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It says we are fine with the current PN setup. It's not perfect, but nothing is. I don't know...maybe some of us aren't too picky. I just ignore what I don't want to read, I don't *need* an avoid button. The only person, over my 10+ years here, that I'd avoid is probably Ann Overland. As for forums...sure, merge some and create some new ones. Not particularly interested, I'll goto what interest me and that's that...</p>

[mike dixon]

"a few can't even see the purpose of the discussion."

 

People see the purpose of the discussion, but they also recognize the limited usefulness of such general discussion. Yes, such discussions can reveal some consensus about changes people would like (easier photo uploading, updated content that's easier to access), but they also illustrate that a lot of proposed changes are simply going to make a different set of people dissatisfied.

 

You want forums to be consolidated so there are fewer. Other people want new specialist forums added. In the past, when forums were consolidated, the users of those forums complained about it. So what makes photo.net better: fewer, more-general forums; or additional, specialized forums?

 

There's a big difference between "here's what I want" and "here's what will improve the site for the vast majority of users." If the discussion is about improving the site, then people who don't like the proposed changes have just as much right to present their views as the people who are suggesting changes.

[brian_m.1]

<p>The forum list is a hodgepodge. Sure, if you have been here long enough you get used to anything but nobody could convince me that if you started from scratch you would come up with what we have now. An entire forum on Minox? The Man from U.N.C.L.E. must still be running.</p>

[mike dixon]

The Minox forum is one of the leftover vestiges of the greenspun.com forums, but there are valid reasons it exists: 1.) there's no other forum where it really fits in (we don't have a subminiature camera forum); 2.) Minox is still in the business of selling cameras; and 3.) the forum is more active than a few others on photo.net. Will getting rid of the Minox forum make photo.net better? Does having it cause users confusion about where to post? How does it benefit photo.net to destroy that small community?<P>

 

If Minox forum participants are still watching the <i>Man from U.N.C.L.E.</i>, does that mean Classic Camera forum participants are still listening to <i>Amos'n'Andy</i> on their tube radios?

[Ian Taylor]

<p>You need to be able to see which of your threads are active without the awkward "Unified" page which is only relevant if you are checking in all the time. If you don't sign in for a week or two, it's useless. </p>

[unangelino]

<p><strong>@ Mike Dixon</strong></p>

<p>I must disagree: The few I mentioned don't think this is worthy of discussion, though I cannot explain their ongoing interest in posting to the thread.</p>

<p>The fact that some think things are peachy as they are and that there's a diversity of opinion about <em>what</em> (if anything) would make PNET better seems to me to be a very good reason to continue the discussion.</p>

<p>It's heartening that Cara dropped by so quickly to express her interest. My OP wasn't intended as anything more than a stepping off point for the ideas of others. I'm genuinely interested to learn what others would do differently if they could. For example, I'd failed to consider the lack of a macro and still life group. I'm glad others were on the ball enough to raise the point.</p>

<p>As ever, the usefulness of the discussion will be a function of the quality of the ideas presented and whether or not anyone with any pull is truly paying attention.</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>It should be clear that changes will have to be made in order for change to take place and there have been a number of good suggestions made in another thread. Let's just hope that every change is thoughtfully considered to fit in a well developed overall strategy so that the site thrives and ultimately profitable. </p>

<p>As for my contribution, Paul's original post highlights the desire for a harmonious, non confrontational and non competitive community-participation experience.</p>

<p>The No Words forum facilitates this by design where everyone is equal and every contributor knows its primary purpose is to share and inspire.</p>

<p>Some forums on the other hand primarily solicit opinions - PoW, Philosophy, Critique - which everyone has, and I believe this is where PNet falls apart for obvious reasons as any in-depth discussion will inevitably turn negative.</p>

<p>Forums dealing with factual issues sit somewhere in between; they can be interesting but only to a select group especially if depth of knowledge expressed becomes too involved.</p>

<p>As opposed to adding Delete/Ignore/Like features, I propose cultivating a positive, non competitive, non confrontational site culture in which participants will naturally conduct themselves accordingly. In other words, to create a culture that is more "No Words"-like.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em> ""any in-depth discussion will inevitably turn negative""</em><br>

Strange formulation from someone that I have the impression actually reads and participates in such discussion. Did you actually mean it, Michael ?<br>

It is surely not my experience with Photonet discussions. Sometimes very active, sometimes confrontational and antagonistic, but very rarely "negative".</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>An entire forum on Minox? The Man from U.N.C.L.E. must still be running.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Stop complaining. At least we got rid of the "Costa Rica" forum...</p>

[parv]

<p><i>This thread should have been moved to "Photo.net Site Help Forum"

already!?</i>

</p><p> About ignoring user: if photo.net would update the HTML so that a post (in

forums) and thread titles both in "Unified Forum" and "Unified Forum: New

Responses" are wrapped with user-id codes as CSS classes, then one can easily (for some definitions of it)

highlight or bury the said thread post and title.

</p><p> For example, if the following post of mine were structured like (I have

added only <i>author-5184751</i> CSS class to photo.net HTML code) ... </p><p>

<blockquote>

(Replace "[" and "]" with "<" and ">" & "cl ass" with "class" for otherwise photo.net erroneously, overzealously eats up HTML attributes. Ugh. #~_~)<br><br>

[ div cl ass=post <i>author-5184751</i&gt]<br>

[ p cl ass=poster]<br>

[ a name=00bR7y][/a]<br>

[ a href=/photodb/user?user_id=5184751]parv .[/a]<br>

[ a href=/member-status-icons][/a], Mar 11, 2013; 04:21 a.m.[/p]<br>

[ div cl ass=message]<br>

...<br>

[ /div]<br>

[ /div]<br>

</blockquote>

</p><p> ... then, to highlight (or hide) it (in Opera) with user side CSS ...

</p><p>

<blockquote>

.post .author-5184751<br>

{<br>

color: #ffcc00 !important;<br>

background-color: #000000 !important;<br>

/* To hide ...<br>

*/<br>

/*<br>

display: none !important;<br>

*/<br>

}

</blockquote>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One thing I'd like is for the photos we display in our portfolios to be on a medium gray background. White is a very bad choice for displaying screen images (though it is the mat color of choice for most galleries displaying prints) because it reflects so much light and can really wash out a lot of screen images. There are rare occasions when white works best on the screen as a background for photos, but a medium gray would be a much more effective universal choice. I am not suggesting we each get to choose our background color. That would probably wind up being an eyesore and create a lack of cohesiveness to the site. But a medium gray, for our portfolio and critique page backgrounds only would go a long way in improving the way our photos are presented and seen on this site.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Good suggestion, Fred !</p>

[john_h.1]

>>>> ...a few can't even see the purpose of the discussion... ...It says a lot about that particular few... ...The few I mentioned don't think this is worthy of discussion, though I cannot explain their ongoing interest in posting to the thread...

 

Probably for the same sort of reason as your ongoing interest in discussing their comments.

[ChrisSpeaker]

<p>I would just like to add that a "hit counter" would be most welcomed in the classifieds ads so you can see any interest in your items for sale.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>"Stop complaining.."</p>

<p>That pretty much sums up the attitude here. BTW, how hard is it to be able quote people properly? That fancy gray bar, that doesn't work even if it did work, has never worked for me. Judging by the machinations others go through I am not alone. Oh, I forgot. I am "complaining" again.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been through this discussion <strong><em>FAR</em> </strong>to many times to go though it again. It never gets anywhere and ends up going around in circles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gee, why not just tell us that you own the football and delete these threads?</p>

<p>The sound of one hand clapping is deafening.</p>

[richard_]

<p>1) Medium gray background - yes - but i would do it for the ENTIRE P.net website (like the photo website, 'Fredmiranda'). Photos display better and makes reading text easier on the eyes.<br>

P.net strength is that it offers an array of Forums, so cutting back wouldn't be the answer, imo.</p>