The defunct Off-Topic forum

[gordonjb]

<p>Well written Lannie, on both accounts. <br>

As far as I can gather from Glenn's response, one of the things that the survey suggests PN is in need of fixing is the problem of the grumpy old men and their grumpy attitudes.<br>

In other words clear out anyone who dissents ( if they've not left already) to make room for the shiny new happy world to come, peopled with shiny new happy members snapping away with their iPhones and telling each other how talented they are. I'm frankly surprised at the few stalwart hangers-on who refuse to acknowledge the obvious and move along. But then I still poke my head through the door once in awhile so what do I know.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, Gordon.</p>

<p>Glenn, if I have over-stated the case, I apologize. I do not wish to hurt. My point was summed up pretty well earlier this afternoon by another Photo.net member who called me to say that what could be expected might be a roll-out of a newly-designed site without anyone having worked closely with experienced photographers who have known and worked on and with the site for years. </p>

<p>The poll that you guys administered sounds fairly analogous to student evaluations to me. I take such surveys seriously, but when I really want to improve my teaching, I have to talk with some of my best students--sometimes at length.</p>

<p>I hope that you will consider doing that with some of Photonet's best (not me), because some of the "grumpy old men" can explain some of the possible unintended consequences of various changes. Sometimes a <em>fait accompli</em> can be fairly shocking and disappointing. That is what some of us hope could be avoided.</p>

<p>Thanks for listening, Glenn. Rest assured that the old Photo.netters are talking with each other fairly regularly, often in dismay. We love the site. We really do, and we want it to be the best that it can be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[G-P]

<p>I have to wonder where the "dismay" is coming from because photo.net has been...a constant in many ways....a time capsule of the 90's. The primary change has come from users coming and going, technology shifts, social channels and in a word....time. Is the dismay that we haven't updated the site or frustration in the way people think of photography? I believe it is a combination of many layers. I think you would have to agree that not all that much has changed in terms of look and feel and if anything functionality of the site has only been added not taken away. Much of the feedback we received from the survey we conducted was that the site appeared "dated" and as a result we as a community risk loosing valuable contributors - something we expect to remedy with the redesign. To many that is stating the obvious, to others they enjoy the way the site is as is as its part of the "charm". However many of us know that charm can only take you so far...you need more than that to find a mate for life...you need depth, intelligence, substance, which is something I believe we have. I hate to make this analogy...but here goes...the pretty girl/boy isn't ALWAYS one you want to spend the rest of your life with...many times she/he is crazy, shallow and void of any substance or depth. While fun for a short run, you know that she/he isn't "the one". The girl/boy that has more depth, the wholesome attractive, intelligent, thoughtful, caring individual is the one you know in your bones the one you want to be with. (Might be a bad analogy but best one I could come up with as my 3 year old daughter is pulling at my arm to read her a bedtime story.) I see PN as the photographers mate for life.... we have intelligent, thoughtful and contributors that care about the art and science of photography. Please know that we are not changing core values of photo.net we're only giving her a make over and building her on foundation that hopefully makes her the "wholesome attractive". The intelligence, depth, thoughtfulness caring aspects all come from largely...you. <br>

Change is the one constant in photography, technology, society and in life. I think we can all agree with that statement on some level. Change comes in many layers as it relates to our world in photography. The rise of Facebook and other notable social channels, technology where photography is a significant piece of the puzzle. Does one generation look at photography the same way another one does? In a word....no. Can a younger generations interested in photography learn from older ones? We're counting on it. Can mobile photography find a home on a place like photo.net? I really hope so...after all it is photography. Can younger generations teach older ones about photography from their perspective? I believe they can.</p>

<p>Fact is we must embrace change whether it be that we are talking about about photo.net or life in general. We won't be the supermodel but rather the attractive, intelligent, deep girl/boy next door that you want to spend your time with, learn from, grow with in a meaningful way. </p>

<p>We don't claim to have all the answers but please know that feedback from experienced photo.net users in addition to new users will be absorbed and incorporated into the new site. Please know that we (the admin) work harder than you would believe on the task of trying to make the community a better place. Can we do a better job communicating updates....in a word...yes. <br>

We are building on shifting sands in photography and we are in this together. Beta is....beta for a reason, we will take feedback and adjust, but we need beta to have something to have meaningful discussions about change. </p>

<p>please be patient, know that we share many of the same frustrations you have and together we will make this a better place. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Thanks Glenn. Please note that my latest response above was not a response to your message of 12:27 p.m., which I hadn't read at the time, and even less, of course, a response to your message above of 12:08 a.m.. These two messages of yours are of the sort, that some of us have been longing for since some months. Well formulated messages on the reflexions and actions the administration are doing to make Photonet an even better place to be around. <br /><br>

<br>

However somehow I feel we are back at the point of last autumn after the results of the survey became known and the administration drew its conclusions on actions needed. At that time, May (2014) was given as the moment where changes could be expected to be implemented. Maybe there was especially expectations on changes related to the critique forum (rating system) and decisions on changes to be made on the Off Topic forum. At least I remember the situation as such.<br>

<br>

The frustration (the "grumping"), of old or young, came about because of the delay and the total (?) lack of communication on the process and the announced results. From your messages above I understand that there is a decision that has been taken (definitive?) on not continuing the Off-topic forum, in any form. Wouldn't it have been a good idea to inform us about that decision, if, indeed, it has been taken ? As you might have understood, I would regret such a decision (I do believe it is fault and sign of weakness to make such a decision) because of the social role of the forum it played for Photonetters like me, with or without excesses and in-fights on subjects that had next to nothing to do with photography - it was indeed an off-topic playing ground for grown-ups. I'm convinced that many of the positive social contacts, that were made during the off-topic discussions, made their way to photo related exchanges in other forums over time. The Casual forum can play some of the role, but that forum cannot replace what happened in almost daily in the Off-Topic forum. I think Lannie is right when he mentions above the observation that Photonet is now "less fun" and somewhat "sanitized", and personally I would suggest to reflect on the reasons for that. The suspension of the Off-topic discussions might have played a role in that change to the worse. <br>

<br>

My main recommendation, at this point of time, is for the administration to take seriously the urgent need for continuing communication to its members. We need to be informed not only on what are the solutions and future projects that the administration is working on, but also on what are the realistic time schedule for changes (May was obviously not the date!). With that type of continuing information you might prevent a fair amount of grumping from old and younger members who care about what happens to our favorite Photography website. You could use the "New messages" function as a means of communication, which we are all sure to see.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I miss Lupo's recipes. I want to talk woodworking and advanced carpentry with Sarah. I want to discuss last week's F1 race with Michael. Your solution to this is for us to go elsewhere. Think about that for a moment.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>These days the solution to everything at PN is "go elsewhere" with the rather predictable result that this is what a lot of people have done.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>I too, miss Lupo's recipes.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Jeff and Gordon I agree the food discussions are missing, but take care we might end up getting a food forum :))</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't miss the recipes. I never thought of coming to PN to get recipes. Jeff, I've thought about it for more than a moment and the "go elsewhere" kind of makes sense to me. Think about it. PN could be CNN and attract a lot more traffic. It could be the Cooking Network and attract lots of new members. But it's not. Nor should it be. It's a photography site. There's no reason why it should be too many more things than a photography site. I advocate more photography and less cooking. I see nothing wrong or uninviting about that. Politics is part of our lives and obviously part of a lot of photography. When it relates to photography, it is appropriate to get into politics (as we have done in the Weekly Discussions) in other areas of the site. A forum to discuss politics or recipes or science that is unrelated to photography seems unnecessary to me and I'm glad the Off Topic forum is history. Also consider the fact that neither CNN nor the Cooking Network have forums for photography discussions. Of course, if there's a news story that relates to photography, it would be discussed. And a Food Network might do a series on food photography, because it's related in that instance. All of that makes sense to me. It makes sense to maintain a web site's focus and to disallow lots of material. Otherwise, we'd just have one big web site for everything, and that would probably get unwieldy very quickly.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Maybe those of you looking can get some recipes on a car forum. Or an A/V equipment forum. Or medical forum. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>This has been beaten to death so I'll be brief.</p>

<p>Off topic discussions isn't so much about random chitchat as it is about community bonding. A community which is absent important elements that strengthens its bond becomes a mere collection of impersonal and fungible individuals.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I agree with you Michael, it's beating a dead horse at this point, which I think is pointless. I'd much rather see our collective energy, especially the creative and active minds in this thread, going to something more productive.</p>

<p>Maybe some of us participating in this thread could put our minds together to come up with ways in which we as members can improve the site and tailor it more to our needs. I was thinking of starting a new thread which might draw the creative and active minds that are in this room as well as others to see if there are new kinds of threads or groups or things we, ourselves, can institute that might make this place more interesting for us. I'm busy the next couple of days, but sometime during the week, I will try to start such a thread where we might come up with our own ways of making this place work for us that are related to photography and that get our juices flowing and that we can simply start on our own.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>" Maybe those of you looking can get some recipes on a car forum. Or an A/V equipment forum. Or medical forum." <br>

Good idea Jeff, thanks for your helpful suggestion. </p>

 

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Fred, I completely understand that you weren't a fan of Off Topic, I get that. I'm not a huge fan of the Minox forum and guess what? I don't believe I've ever visited the Minox forum! (maybe once, by accident). So I've confirmed that it is possible to avoid the things that don't interest me. I don't think anyone is advocating offtopic.net but this site can be both a resource <em>and</em> a community. When I run into a friend at the grocery store I don't limit my conversation to the contents of my cart. We are human beings with a passion for photography but we are not single-minded photography robots and this is supposed to be a <em>community</em>. Expecting that single-mindedness from your membership simply because you're not willing to invest in moderation will certainly make many feel they are being shown the door.</p>

<p>What about making Off Topic available only to paid members... and Gordon.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>BTW, for those of you who want to discuss food, <a href="http://www.chow.com/">this</a> is an excellent site.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>In the name of productivity, let's all go elsewhere and only come back to Photonet from time to time when we have a question concerning photography to address. Questions put, answer given. <br>

I'm out !</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Anders, not so fast. We're in transition, and although we don't (and shouldn't) have the final say, our input is no less in the interest of the community's cohesion independent of our differing views. <br>

Give it a chance! </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Jeff, I agree with you that we can always change the channel and not look in on what we're not interested in. That was, in fact, my position when the Off Topic forum was closed many months ago. So I understand where you're coming from. After these many months, it's been made clear that it's a <em>fait accompli</em> so I'm more interested in moving forward than looking back. I think there are ways we can improve the site and improve the PN community without fighting battles that have already been lost.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>let's all go elsewhere and only come back to Photonet from time to time when we have a question concerning photography to address. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's what the vast majority of the people on this site do. Most of them go to political sites to discuss politics, ham radio sites to discuss ham radio, food sites to discuss food. And to just hang out and chat, it seems that the vast majority use Facebook.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Jeff I'm not that sure that a reference to what the majority do on internet is relevant. I actually, in my naivety, believed that Photonet was somewhat different. That's at least why I have been around. If rules of productivity and just moving forward based on whatever decisions are taken, becomes to the general rule of conduct, I'm not that interested anymore. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>nm</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So what I'm gathering from the responses here from mods and Glenn is that they prefer PN members develop bonds with PN individual members and the overall PN community through photography related subjects only and go elsewhere for other non-photography subjects.</p>

<p>I've been a contributing member here for at least nine years (I've a collection of PN threads I've saved to PDF to prove it) and I still feel like a red headed stepchild. Where's the bond? It feels like I've contributed nothing in those nine years.</p>

<p>The only thing that keeps me coming back here is the anticipation I'll find something new and interesting to discuss. But from what I'm seeing in the Unified View "New Responses" forum I'm finding I have nothing more to discuss that either hasn't already been covered or is just downright boring or is not in my knowledge base.</p>

<p>Maybe I've been addicted to the hunt and the anticipation of finding something new. Not sure. I found another hobby editing music similar to what I've done restoring photos and underexposed Raw captures. That forum was the coldest experience I've ever encountered online. My first post I restored someone's poorly recorded music played at family get together, included screenshots of the edits and I got no response of whether it was to their liking. </p>

<p>There's something strange feeling trying to bond with people by giving of yourself and find folks just don't give a sh*t. Even my local volunteering where I physically get to look people straight in the eye doesn't even garner a "Hey, I ya' doin'" when I run across them in public.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm expecting too much from this "bonding" thingy.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I don't personally know what kinds of time costs were associated with moderating the Off-Topic forum. That admittedly has to be a consideration.</p>

<p>As for other costs--not to mention revenues for the site--the OT forum probably generated some hits and thus (I presume) some advertising revenue-whether enough to justify its existence, I don't know.</p>

<p>What I liked about the OT forum (though I rarely frequented it myself) was that people who did go there to discuss politics, food, or something else often seemed energized, interesting, and engaged.</p>

<p>Even so, it did remind me a bit of what one of my friends said once about Gatlinburg and the Great Smoky Mtns. National Park next door to that town. I said, "I love to hike in the Park, but I hate Gatlinburg." He said, "Yes, but think of it as a pile of dung where the flies will congregate. It keeps them busy so they don't crowd the Park."</p>

<p>Maybe. I haven't hiked in the Smokies since 1970. Much less have I revisited Gatlinburg. I'm not sure what the point of my little story is, so I will close for now.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Came up with an analogy to web based socializing. It goes like this...</p>

<p>The internet can be likened to a big world wide dance where both male and female are all hopping up and down on the balls of their feet bobbing their heads to the beat. An individual arrives/logs on (you/me) asking one of them (male or female) "Would you like to dance?". The person responds..."We're dancing!", says no more and keeps bopping up & down to the beat.</p>

<p>You/me puzzled by the vague response, move on to the next individual asking the same question..."Do you want to dance?" upon which the same reply..."We're dancing!" is uttered again until it dawns on you/me that they're really dancing for themselves, not for or with anyone else. But you still can't be sure due to the vague answers.</p>

<p>I mean really they didn't lie. They were just being their own uncomplicated selves answering the question the best they could or maybe distracted from formulating a more specific answer from having too much fun dancing like everyone else.</p>

<p>So what you/me start doing is our own dance flailing our arms about, throwing our heads back in wild abandon avoiding asking these individuals more specifically "Do you want to dance with only me?" because you/me really don't want or care to hear the answer as well as risk the possibility of being rejected (maybe from our dance of nonconformity) by uncomplicated people who prefer speaking vaguely whether they're aware of it or not.</p>

<p>All in all you/me are still one individual sitting in front of a computer trying to connect with people on a meaningful level. How's it working so far? Over nine years of trying to connect I'm not so sure, but now I'm addicted but I don't know to what.</p>

<p>This is the kind of stuff I sometimes like talking about on the Off Topic forum because I've gleamed from the level of communicative writing on this site there's at least someone who can relate or reply in a meaningful way to such subject matter. There's no place on the web to speak this way and BELIEVE someone is reading it or gets it.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I think we need to accept that some of us are dinosaurs and no longer relevant to the new PN model. We were once the reason PN was different, it was "A SITE FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS BY PHOTOGRAPHERS" and we knew that because the administration fostered that thriving community and because they plastered the motto at the top of every page. The motto remains but the spirit has departed. As Mr. Palm said, this is now "a site about <em>photography</em>... It's really that simple." While I agree that administration does not create a sense of community, they certainly can ruin it. This is sort of like an employer closing the break room. It's not necessary, you're there to work, not socialize. When you aren't working, leave the factory. I guess the flaw in my analogy is that the break room was sort of a perk to the veterans who, instead of being paid by their employer, actually paid them.<br /><br />The solution is to either accept and adapt to the new model or find somewhere else. PN is still of value to me but not what it once was and the amount of time I spend here reflects that. I'm still looking forward to watching it transform. Whether or not I'm a part of that remains to be seen.</p>