Beyond ImagePro: the Future of PhotoNet

[Spearhead]

<p>I've been on the web since 1993 and can't remember a single web site, including ones I paid for, asking users what to do. They change. I don't remember any magazines asking me before they changed format and design either. If people want input into web sites, they should start their own.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Michael, the thread you refer to of last August, where Glen provided a series of contribution was almost exclusively concerned with the question of which changes to PN the administration are considering. Glen did indeed a good work on that occasion, which many of us were grateful for, of informing us on the initial customer survey and its conclusion. The subject of the thread was mainly on the defunct Off-Topic forum.<br>

However also in that thread the administration did not offer information on when and finally which changes we could be expecting to see. </p>

<p>I find it somewhat strange, to read suggestions above of leaving the boat or shutting up. For me, among the numerous contributions I have made to PN throughout the years - in all modesty of course - the ones of calling on the administration to do their work and doing it better when they fail, might be among the most important. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Jim, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to deny your right to demand customer service, and I'm not, but I think I have a sufficiently firm grasp on the site's challenges to know that the task at hand must be akin to swimming with alligators. </p>

<p>Of course that doesn't excuse a site's need for better judgement on customer service, but there are situations where there is genuinely nothing further to add once an announcement is made and the only course for us is to wait patiently. Microsoft must get a lot of that on Windows 8's UI and its absence of a Start button. </p>

<p>You mentioned "Statement of Management's Vision and Plans". While it might be interesting to know for our personal interest and consumption, these things are really confidential matters for directors and shareholders and are frankly none of our business. <br>

<br>

These types of threads, while well intentioned, risk becoming interferences to site progress as the discussion moves along and at some point serves no real purpose except to incite community dissonance; the opposite of what was intended. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>@ Michael</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>...risk becoming interferences to site progress...</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How could <em>any</em> thread interfere with PNET's website development or design?</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I've been on this site since 2002 and it seems to have changed not one iota. Kinda the charm of the place. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>While lack of feedback may be frustrating, it's par for the course. Microsoft didn't ask me about Windows 8, nor did they keep me up to date with the progress. Canon didn't consult me on the 7D MkII, in fact they didn't even tell me they were working on one. Facebook never informed me of an upcoming change in their interface, nor did they ask me if I wanted one. Same goes for Yahoo, Google, Netflix and every other software, hardware or web service vendor I use.</p>

<p>Unlike the early days, Photo.net isn't one or two guys running the site in their free time and interacting directly with users. Like it or not it's now corporate owned by NameMedia, a private company with 100+ employees, a board of directors and investors to keep happy and corporate style policies on divulging plans and reporting on behind the scenes activities.</p>

<p>All this is not to say that progress reports and feedback to the general userbase wouldn't be nice, it's just not something you can realistically expect to happen very often (if at all). </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I understand that Bob. But when you have a service where the product is actually created by the contributors free of charge, maybe different attitudes might productively apply. And when you're watching the brand and the revenue opportunity it represents circling the plug-hole - which in the medium term will carry the advertising revenue with it, maybe a sensible management might decide to feed some information out there to prevent the situation worsening and encourage those still here to stay and pay a bit longer till things get sorted.</p>

<p>Or of course it may not be that the site's owners/managers are just staying strong and silent because that's their prerogative. Maybe they're silent because they haven't much of an idea about what to do to reverse things, or maybe because they've actually given up already? Certainly they shouldn't change the way the site looks and works just because they can- they should want to be reasonably sure that it would pay back.</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>Well, you could say the same about DPreview I guess. Their product is user generated as much as Photo.net. I don't see them asking for user input, responding to forum questions, offering a user feedback forum or providing information on planed updates. Facebook is 100% user generated content as is Twitter and all of the photo hosting sites like 500px and Flickr. None of them ask for user input or provide info on plans for the websites or progress reports on updates.</p>

<p>I can't tell you about what's going on behind the scenes here at photo.net because for the most part I don't know. I know there <em>is</em> a new design for the site because I've seen a Beta test version of part of it. How close it is to launch I have no idea and how extensive it is I don't know. I don't really need to know since I'm not involved with the design or the implementation. I presume when I need to know, I'll be given that info.</p>

<p>I don't know how well the site is doing and you certainly cannot base any guesses about that on a few forum threads and complaints (or compliments) from a handful of users. You'd need to see the site stats for traffic and advertising revenue to have any idea how well the site is functioning and that's never going to be public information. I'm 100% sure that site management is fully aware of those numbers though and if action was required, they'd take it.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If people want input into web sites, they should start their own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, <em>I was going to stay out of this</em>, but that kind of arrogance is exactly what is wrong here.</p>

<p>Jeff, what you wrote sounds remarkably similar in tone to what Phil Greenspun wrote some years ago. Phil said that people could leave and the site would simply replace them with others. He bragged about how fast the site was growing.</p>

<p>Message?</p>

<p>"We really don't need your photos. We can get contributors from all over to replace you."</p>

<p>Bad business. That is very, very bad business.</p>

<p>Every time that kind of arrogant tone is manifested on this site, "we" lose some good photographers.</p>

<p>This is a good site. I like it. Yet, if it disappeared today, my life and that of every other photographic contributor would go on as before without so much as a missed heartbeat.</p>

<p>If we all left, the site would most definitely not go on as before. You really, really do need us.</p>

<p><strong>We really, really don't need the site. That is a fact. This is a useful site. I like it. Indeed, I LOVE it!</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>But. . . I do not <em>NEED</em> it.</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[wogears]

<p>Bob, Flickr (for one) is constantly asking for user feedback on their betas, and they have been surprisingly responsive to it. They fixed the "endless scrolling" for example, changed how the Groups feed is organized, etc.There is even a lot of back-and-forth at DPR.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'm sure that once the beta is launched, photo.net will be listening for feedback. However the photo.net beta hasn't been launched. Google, Facebook etc. typically don't do public beta tests. They launch the new site and wait for complaints....and they don't pre-announce when their beta tests will be live. They listen to the complaints and sometimes they fix things. Sometimes they don't.<br>

<em> </em><br>

Not much more I can say so I'll bow out of this discussion. I don't speak for the site and I'm not part of the management team. Like everyone else I'm just waiting to see what the new site looks like overall, what features it will have and how it differs from the current site. I've provided a small amount of feedback on a small section of the beta site when I was invited to do so. I think one or two other people may have had some similar input but obviously things aren't yet ready for public comment. </p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...risk becoming interferences to site progress...</em><br>

<em>How could any thread interfere with PNET's website development or design?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Paul, in general, there are lurkers reading these posts who will respectively form their perception based on the tone of these threads, and it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest any negative tone will negatively impact their psyche which will in turn negatively impacts the site.</p>

<p>Along those lines, you can imagine any criticism directed toward the new site design, when unveiled, will be filled with references to these threads in the form of "I told you so". </p>

 

[steve_bingham]

<p>Very interesting comments by Michael Chang and Bob Atkins - two people who I greatly respect. As I was very early in Phillip's project, it saddens me to even think of losing these two great voices - <strong>and many others.</strong> Will I hang around? You bet. Photography is undergoing a huge transformation at this time - everyone is a photographer and few care about magnificent 2' x 3' prints. I do, and will continue to support photo.net - regardless of structure.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Last time I checked (and it wasn't that recently), NameMedia operated several "enthusiast"-oriented websites, the most prominent (and appalling, to me in any case) being the psychic reading website. Now, it seems they've jettisoned all that, and basically have two things going on: (1) Photo Net and (2) marketing "digital real estate." </p>

<p>So NameMedia has undergone a lot of change recently, probably in the name of greater (or any) profits. Perhaps it bodes well for Photo Net's future that it is featured prominently on their corporate site: http://namemedia.com/ </p>

<p>On the other hand, all this change may indicate that NameMedia as a company is foundering. If it is not profitable in this iteration, it might be lights out at NameMedia and at Photo Net too.</p>

<p>Of course, I just conjecture.</p>

<p> </p>

[unangelino]

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Compelling.</p>

<p>I suppose we could all work to prevent that unfortunate possibility by ending any post that could possibly be construed as negative or unduly critical with:</p>

<p><strong>: )</strong></p>

<p>Or, we could just go forward and trust that the essential tone and content of our posts (on this subject) will create a meaningful exchange.</p>

<p>I vote for the second option.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, what you wrote sounds remarkably similar in tone to what Phil Greenspun wrote some years ago. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Bob said the exact same thing. It's the way the web works. Web sites grow because they find a way to attract users. Forums do not attract new users. If I took over photo.net tomorrow, I would move the forums way down in prominence and focus on high quality static content with user commenting and image uploads. Especially image uploads. Photography is about photos and the new generation gets that, they shoot and share rather than talk and argue about photography.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If I took over photo.net tomorrow, I would move the forums way down in prominence and focus on high quality static content with user commenting and image uploads.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, if you took over tomorrow. . .</p>

<p>Nah! Too easy a target.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[gungajim]

<p>Landrum,<br>

:-))))</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>+1 for Jeff's comments</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Martin, I have followed Namemedia's financial situation and comments from employees and job-seekers (Glassdoor), as well.<br /> Maybe the real reason for the non-communication about the implementation of changes on PN is not really to be found in anything around Photonet and what we call the "administration", but is a wider company issue. We just have to let it rest and news will come our way one day.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>I'm going to disagree with Jeff. For me, it's the forums and educational content I find the most interesting aspects of photo.net. I will occasionally look at someone's portfolio or individual pictures, but that's actually pretty rare for me.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm the total opposite to Jeff. I'm here because of the forums, full stop. I look at a lot of photographs, but elsewhere. What I want from photo.net is a regular flow of interesting , challenging questions and answers and a large number/ wide range of forum participants that I can learn from and hopefully help a bit from time to time. That's what PN has historically done way better than other sites. Photo storage and comment you can find anywhere and I'm not sure that Photo.net has ever demonstrated it can do a better job.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree with you Bill and David, but Jeff being responsible is maybe not that likely - me being responsible, even less, I can assure you.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I find the forums the most interesting content of photo.net. In some other sites the discussion forums are filled with hostile, juvenile comments behind anonymous userids, with few good posts in between. Photo.net forums rely on interesting and willing participants who want to help each other, and the percentage of insincere posts here is comparatively low. I appreciate the other parts of photo.net as well, including galleries and articles in the static content but I find it is easier to find interesting work in selected photographers' own websites, blogs, and in bookstores than here. Also I find it more productive to discuss photographs in person with other people including photographers and non-photographers, rather than online. The static content of photo.net is valuable especially to new photographers, and in some fields (e.g. in wedding photography) it is quite strong, but these articles rely on volunteers to write them and hopefully there will be more articles in the future.</p>

<p>I think the reduced volume of activity on photo.net may be mostly due to many other, alternative sites appearing. E.g. Facebook allows images to be seen by larger audiences as it is not limited to or targeted towards photographers, and it is focused on posts and comments within groups of people somehow socially related to each other. dpreview is mostly about gear, while they also have some image related content the site tends to be focused on discussing aspects of equipment. Fotozones has a quite strong image critique forum with high quality images posted and commentary tends to be on topic and civil. They have gear related subforums also. I think photo.net has some particular areas of strength which are tightly linked to the activity of key volunteer contributors. I think one area where we could be better is in the response to newcomer questions, it could be more encouraging. Another could be less focus on small details of personal preference and more on the big picture.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>+1 about the forums. There are a million sites with images - very few with worthwhile discussions between grown ups. That is Photonet's unique strength.</p>