Whither the photo of the week?

[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>

[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>

[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!<br>

But it has nowtime out twiceIhoe it will be better this time...</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>

<p>it was 3 timeout...I hope it will work the 4th time... what I was afraid off happened again.. I closed PNand entered again did not see my posting and here it is 4 times...</p>

[G-P]

<p>Prina, I would have to respectfully disagree. Current POD has thoughtful comments with todays date May 2nd from Art X, Gordon B, Fred G. POD has been there not even 2 days - the gallery for POD where you can review previous POD's and continue the discussions past the day the photo is featured will be up soon. Be open to the possibility that it could be a good thing. Give it a chance.</p>

[pnital]

<p>OK Glann. Good day every one (it is nearly midnight here...)</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Pnina, when you make a posting and the server tells you that it had timeout and that you should back up your browser and try again it is lying to you. In truth the last thing you should do is hit the back button and re-post. If you reload the page after the timeout in most instances you will find that despite the bad advice from the server your post did in fact make it to the forum thread. As silly as it seems, this is how the system currently works. Hopefully that issue will be addressed soon, although promises to that effect have been made for a very long time without any action. Hope that helps. Cheers Gord</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Re the newsletter: Why not keep the "back issues" newsletter archive up to date?</p>

<p>The most recent issue included in the archive is dated Dec. 6, 2012.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>I don't remember any advance notice of abolishing the POW and substituting a POD. My first notice was the newsletter, at which point the switch already had occurred. It would have been nice if Admin had initially posted a thread seeking feedback from the membership. Oh well, I guess my steady annual $25 contribution doesn't mean as much as I thought. (Oops, sorry Admin, that's just a bit of musing; didn't mean it to be a criticism.)</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Couple of problems with the POD:</p>

<ol>

<li>One can not subscribe to follow-up comments unless one comments; and</li>

<li>There is no archive of prior POD.</li>

</ol>

[jimadams]

<p>Photo of the <em>Day</em>? How mundane.</p>

[bloodnut]

<p>potw was always required reading; for lots of reasons, i will be re-thinking my annual subscription as this feels like censorship.</p>

<p>cheers mick</p>