Whither the photo of the week?

[mhahn]

<p>Oh, where has it gone?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Martin, did you not receive the Photo.net newsletter? It was announced:</p>

<blockquote>

<strong>Photo of the Week is Now Photo of the Day! </strong>

 

The group of Elves has grown and they are impatient! No longer will you have to wait a week for a new Photo of the Week. The choices will be recent uploads and will represent a wide range of subjects from landscapes and nature to portraits and food and many more. Again, please do tag your photos to ensure they will show up in searches.

<br /><strong>Stop by <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fnCSQzwW77SbNAgyBeQo84aiQZIdVgmr-U0uY-UmHasK1J2otD0rOt9ZpIyiqMoNZPIxXr5gmWhl4cKeoJN_IUMetOOUuffc-ZydPzCxOWI=" shape="rect" target="_blank">the homepage</a> each day to see the new Photo of the Day!</strong><br /><strong>Here is the first one: <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fnCSQzwW77RP2goIE9gJiozayww3bHfhtx4iOr364tpcpvdBdDV7RXdqSD575eFuHhv5f30M-FkXG9Guk5DYTmCsV70pNToWU8t8QofiJLUNdMOqc5W4Crlfs6EZJ7NstxzmhCEOEmnPcr9ggkKlygAjIyCcEkAG" shape="rect" target="_blank">April 30th</a>.</strong>

</blockquote>

[gordonjb]

<p>Kill off the only forum where you might find anything even vaguely resembling a meaningful discussion of photography? Sure why not.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Just when it started to be fresh...(.Last one)</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I didn't see the newsletter (it doesn't seem to come to me regularly, or maybe it's erroneously picked up as spam), but I did see the new "photo of the day."</p>

<p>It just seems to me that there's plenty of space on the website for a "photo of the week" and a "photo of the day" and lots of other things too. Why discontinue the POW and alienate those who like(d) it? Why not just make the "photo of the day" an additional feature?</p>

<p>This doesn't have to be an either/or option.</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>Photo of the week had a long tradition of generating spirited discussions. It doesn't always go well, but I think the reasons have more to do with the PoW structure than its participants. </p>

<p>My suggestions are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Bring it back but get rid of the gold cup and mention of elves;</li>

<li>Change the name to "Discussion of the Week";</li>

<li>Pictures to be selected by recipients from the past 6 months;</li>

<li>Explain the attributes that brought it to discussion but don't limit the scope of discussion; </li>

<li>Choose only high quality images;</li>

<li>Notify owner of selection and allow owner to decline. </li>

</ul>

 

[mhahn]

<p>Unfortunately, Michael, the administrators don't seem to be listening to suggestions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Choose only high quality images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And how are you to have agreement on that? Like "buy low, sell high" it's great theory but sometimes the practice doesn't measure up.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"And how are you to have agreement on that?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, have you ever seen a lousy picture from Vogue, NY Times, NASA or similar publications? The reason for suggesting the selection of high quality images is my observation that it usually results in high quality discussions and might be of greater interest to competent photographers, amateur or professional - in the context of coexisting with Picture of the Day. <br>

<br>

Martin, I do believe the thread is being observed. </p>

[mhahn]

<p>Am I mistaken about the POW being abolished without any advance warning? If any administrators are reading the thread, it's for their own purposes, clearly.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>have you ever seen a lousy picture from Vogue, NY Times, NASA or similar publications?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a matter of fact, yes. Many times. There have been whole eras when <em>Vogue</em> was 'trendy' and unreliable. the <em>NYT</em> prints the pictures they get of breaking news, often artistically awful, but that isn't what they are for.<br /> NASA does get to cherry pick a little more, but not everything from them is aesthetically accomplished, either. Some of those Mars surface pictures are ... well, see <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/mars-rover-draws-penis-on-red-planet_844570.html">link</a> ;)</p>

<p>It all comes down to what "high quality" is. I doubt the definition of that is going to be universal.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It all comes down to what "high quality" is."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a distinction between what constitutes high quality vs. what appeals to specific individuals. I don't think we need to get caught up in philosophy to raise the bar; quality is an intangible we all recognize whether or not it's objectively acknowledged by specific individuals. <br>

<br>

With the bar set high, your objections will make perfect discussion material. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If any administrators are reading the thread, it's for their own purposes, clearly."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It goes without saying that those tasked with the responsibilities make the rules, and rightly so, but they also make or change rules at their own professional peril and the entities they govern. Those of us not in the loop can only make suggestions and debate/discuss as our contribution to the process whether or not it's heard. </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the entire point of having a new image every day is to curtail any in-depth discussion or debate. On a site with as little activity as this one, the discussion on a photo of the day is going to be a couple of 1 or 2 sentence comments and then the image will fall off the page by nightfall. No time to dig into the particulars and banter about the merits and pitfalls of the image. One only has to look as far as today's image, one comment and in only a few hours about to fall into the abyss. Given how obvious this result is, I cannot imagine that it can be anything other than the intentions of those who decided to kill the potw and replace it with this silliness. I'm not apposed to fluff, if fluff is what floats your boat but I do think that it a shame to replace substance with fluff. As Martin wrote previously in this thread, why would there not be room for both a potw and the new fluff.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Gordon, "Photo of the Day" can serve well as fluff to attract front page views but I'll agree that it's no substitute for PoW. </p>

<p>Anyone doubting the value of PoW should visit postings from years ago thriving with insightful input from a diverse community of highly intelligent members, while those on the sidelines were entertained and educated by the comments resulting in millions of page views. It wasn't without its problems, but those days are fondly remembered as a time when threads like this became pages and pages long filled with ideas and suggestions from members who cared.<br>

<a href="/photodb/photo-of-the-week/?sort_by=windate&year=2003">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-of-the-week/?sort_by=windate&year=2003</a></p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Michael, i am in full agreement with you on that. Fluff has its place and I am all for whatever it takes to keep the doors open. I just thinkthat its a shame to bang one thing on the head to replace it with another. Even though Josh banned me from participating years ago I still followed the discussion because once in awhile one of the participants raised a point that was of interest and which I could take away and used.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>By the way, the PoW discussions can be tricky to get to for first-time visitors. </p>

<p>You have to click on "Read the Discussion" to get to the PoW comments or you'll simply see the image comments:<br>

<a href="/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=631676">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=631676</a> - Image comments<br>

<a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/004xkv">http://www.photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/004xkv</a> - PoW comments</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I think the idea of a picture of the day isn't at all a bad one. It gives more chance of exposure for photographers and something to bring back viewers every day is always good.</p>

<p>However I can see merit in the suggestion that the POTW could still stay around. I don't know any technical reason why it couldn't but I don't know if there are any plans for that. I'd certainly support having it stay somewhere on the site if it's practical to do so.</p>

[carashilaire]

<p>Hello - I mentioned in the last two newsletters that it would be changing. Not to gain page views at all, but actually in response to the slew of complaints about POW. It isn't meant as fluff, but rather to ensure a wide variety of photos would be seen and a wide variety of you members as well. Appreciate the feedback - we'll discuss if there is a way to keep a weekly photo discussion somehow take a poll to see if the majority would like to keep it. <br /><br />Martin - if you want the newsletter and you aren't getting it, you might need to check your workspace to make sure you are subscribed. It is one way to share recent articles and happenings at photo.net and a good way for us to communicate with a large group at once. </p>

[mhahn]

<p>Hi Cara,</p>

<p>I guess what you see as changing it others see as eliminating it.</p>

<p>Yeah, why not keep both? Satisfy more constituencies that way.</p>

<p>And someone had an idea about having forum where everyone can take a shot at editing a picture and then debating the relative merits of everyone's different edits. There could be that too.</p>

<p>There could be any number of things!</p>

<p>I don't know why I haven't been getting the newsletter. Maybe something to do with the e-mail on my end.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Cara , If I understand your response the photo of the day is about visibility. I suppose that visibility is something which will appeal to a large number of people. The potw however was about discussing photography, something which is not synonymous with a desire for exposure.<br>

While I am not privy to the specific slew of complaints you mention, I do know that the vast number of complaints I have read by members regarding the POTW and certainly the reason I was booted out had to do with dissatisfaction with the selection process for the images. A process which was deeply flawed and needed attention for a long time. I have not read any public complaints in the 7 years that I have been here which expressed a desire to kill the forum. Perhaps killing the potw is easier than putting effort into making it a better forum however I would caution that easier is not always better.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>While I rarely post in the POW forum, I always read through the comments. I hope it is brought back with efforts toward improvements implemented. I think Gordon B makes very good points to consider. I will add that I would like to see the posts moderated to be kept on topic.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Hi Cara, I join the group for keeping the POW, some times I did not write anyhing, but always read the discussion.<br /> I have asked Glenn to keep it as well. I think it is important to many of us that are years members at PN,because it is a way to learn and read in depth all the pro an against ,and explanations why!</p>

<p>If you see the last POW which was really refreshing, while the POD will be very shallow and with much less interest for the longer time members.</p>

<p>so I think that it was a good idea of Martin's to keep both, so members will be able to choose what is more interesting to each one of them.</p>

[G-P]

<p>There will be a gallery of the pictures of the day that you can visit and comment. We just wanted a week of POD to start the gallery. Once that is in place - just because a photo is featured on Tuesday, doesn't mean the conversation can't continue on. <br /> The goal was to give more exposure to more photographers and in turn have more discussions about photography. On more than one occasion, there were many pictures of the week discussions that got stale after 2-3 days and we all had to wait for 4-5 days to get something new. That said, we'll talk about picture of the week again and taking your suggestions into that discussion.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Glenn, my worry with your idea would be that given your concern over a single potw discussion going "stale" what are the odds of having seven meaningful dialogues running concurrently each week?</p>

<p>My take on the potw discussion becoming stale would be that the issue was with the stagnation of the elves. Often the same photographers were being recycled repeatedly. My work was chosen twice, laughably the second time was after I'd been banned from the forum for life. Some other photographers have been selected 3 and 4 times. The type of image picked was likewise myopic with little variation or risk taking. If the forum became boring it was not due to a lack of spirit in the participants but a lack of thought going into the selection process.</p>

[G-P]

<p>That was the hope - having up multiple conversations going on all at once, believe it or not...PN could handle it. Maybe we were being too optimistic, but maybe that could actually happen - just think <em>maybe</em> its a reason for people to come back <em>daily</em> to discuss the topic photography. Interesting concept - I think we like that one. We believe we've addressed the concerns about the stagnation but only time will tell - my ask - please give it a chance. Point is, this represents more of opportunity to discuss the subject of photography, which is why we're all here anyway....isn't it?</p>

[pnital]

<p>Dear Cara and Glenn, as Gordon reminded it, ! I would like to ask both of you, as new administrators ,to open a new page, and bring back the members that were banned from the site. I think that it will give a good feeling to faitful members , to a real new, and different start!<br>

Glenn, we wrote at the same time.You are right that time will tell, even though I liked the POW ,as one of the best forums at the site.</p>

[G-P]

<p>Pnina - that is a different topic all together. As we've said before in different threads, people get banned because they do not adhere to the terms of use and do so repeatedly. The goal of any community based site regardless of size or topic is to attract new users to keep it an engaging and thriving community. Playing by the rules is something everyone agrees to when they sign up. Its simply not fair to the thousands that do play by the rules to see people repeatedly not play by the rules. </p>

[pnital]

<p>Glenn, thanks for your answer and point of view. I agree with you about keeping the rules.I do think that instead of banning members from the site it will be fair to warn them, and be given another chance, I'm sure Gordon and others will understand the second chance l and will behave..;-))!what do you say about trying it?</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Pnina,<br /> Speaking strictly on the subject of my own lifetime ban. Given that the potw is now defunct, a ban on my participation in a forum which no longer exists has no practical significance. I've outlived the forum :-)</p>

<p>Glenn,<br /> I believe that I am being pragmatic rather than cynical when I say that I doubt very much that reality will rise up to meet your optimism. Any new idea needs time to succeed or fail so yes we will all need to wait and see. Still bummed that, in the interim, you killed the potw forum.</p>

[G-P]

<p>All members that have been banned have had numerous exchanges with moderators telling them that their behavior was in violation of our terms of use. If members posts are deleted, we tell you the reason why they are deleted - that in and of itself is a warning and should be taken as one. <br>

Again, the goal of any community based site regardless of size or topic is to attract new users to keep it an engaging and thriving community. Playing by the rules is something everyone agrees to when they sign up. Its simply not fair to the thousands that do play by the rules to see people repeatedly not play by the rules.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>It just seems to me that it would be better to say, "This is what we're thinking of trying. What do you think of it"? Then let people discuss it, before saying, "well, we've listened to all of you, and this is what we're going to try."</p>

<p>This would probably make the community members happier, and since the community members are your customers, it would probably also be a good business decision.</p>

<p>Maybe you could even run contests to choose new features of the site to try out.</p>

[G-P]

<p>Gordon B - Last I checked you're not banned in the picture of the day discussions are you? Wow...look at that....it may have actually worked out well for both of us didn't it?! And just think - there will be a new one waiting for you everyday! BTW - as I said earlier, we'll take the suggestions here and be talking internally about the future of picture of the week. Contrary to what some may believe, we are here to do good. Give us a little time with it, in the meantime kick the tires on the POD. </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Glenn, If you check you will find that I had already, earlier today, posted a critique on today's image.<br>

Although I'll admit to shaking my head in bewilderment at some of your actions, I have not, nor do I now, question your good intentions. I think it would be fair to say that everyone commenting in this thread is doing so with the best of intentions.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Glenn,reading the POD comments,it has reminded me Flickr , which I tried and run away from! it is shallow, flate, and as a wider horizones of participants does not worth the time invested.</p>

<p> I worry it will be so with the POD. You are right that it needs time, but sometime the effect can be'spilling the water with the baby"... that why I thought about starting the POD, and leaving as well the POW.</p>

<p>I saw as well that all the real contributers of POW, missing from the POD, like John a, Arthur Plampton and some others,( aside from the banned Gordon and Fred G. which were active intelligent contributors).</p>

<p>So as I offered lets open a new page!</p>