PN Community

[lacey_gribbin]

<p>I recently returned to PN following a 4 year hiatus. I am just wondering what everyone's feel on the community is? I realize there are always going to be a few bad apples in the barrel - but for the most part does everyone enjoy being a part of PN? Are the people as helpful as they once were? Is there a lot of childish backlash over critiques or ratings? Or has this place just turned into somewhere to get your ego fluffed? <br />I am one who thrives on critiques, both positive and negative. I always appreciate the time someone takes from their day to leave a comment on a photograph. I enjoy seeing the perspective of how other see my images, to have things pointed out that I don't see. What I don't have the time or patience for though is spiteful comments with no constructive criticism. I know when I left PN had started implementing the "Helpful" comments rating in an attempt to entice people into more constructive critiques. Unfortunately shortly after that system was put into place I left the community, so I never got to see whether or not it was working. Perhaps I should have started out with the free account again before moving to a new paid account.<br>

I see a lot of names that I remember, and I see a lot of names I don't recognize. The old names give me hope that PN is still worthwhile. Had I not left I'd be at 10 years subscribed right now. So when I recognize people they really have been around for a while! I'm just hoping that this community hasn't changed for the worse. I'm hoping to hear that PN is collectively still a good community. Mostly though, I am hoping to hear honest opinions from the members of this community. <br>

Thank you for your time! </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I am one who thrives on critiques, both positive and negative. I always appreciate the time someone takes from their day to leave a comment on a photograph. I enjoy seeing the perspective of how other see my images, to have things pointed out that I don't see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I participate extensively and benefit both from giving and getting critiques. I've spent time carving out a niche of people who do give substantive critiques. If not always critiques per se, they give me insightful comments, honest emotional reactions to my work, make thoughtful statements in response to seeing my photographs. All of that is helpful. Likewise, it's helpful to make comments, doing the work it takes to articulate my reaction to someone's photo and look at it carefully and think about it. That helps my own work, too.<br>

<br>

Sure, occasionally I get a nasty or thoughtless comment but I take it in stride. And, at least someone bothered to be nasty. I certainly don't let those few get in the way of my appreciation of what the majority of critics here have offered me. <br>

<br>

I don't sense that the HELPFUL button has made much difference. And I do get the sense that I get out of the critique section in proportion to what I put into it. I've met a lot of good photographers and had a lot of interesting insights from people who've found my work because I put it up for critique. I try to offer a critique to anyone who's given me one and that's led to some good relationships over time. But even the one shot deals can be enlightening and helpful.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, I noticed you got a couple of nasty comments from an "anonymous" critic. If someone's not open enough to put their name to a comment, I'm not sure I'd put a whole lot of stock in it, especially when they call something boring without providing reasons for that assessment or suggestions of how not to make it boring. It doesn't seem like Anonymous put a whole lot of thought into his/her comments and I'd give it that much thought in response!</p>

[lacey_gribbin]

<p>Thanks Fred! I know who posted the comments, you can see the name when you block the comment. They were retaliating for a critique I had left in the request critique forums where I pointed out a few things that caught my eye. Apparently they didn't take it well! haha Because I know who and why the comments were left I don't take any stock in them at all. It is what it is, a spiteful tantrum. I am just hoping that the whole community hasn't evolved into that sort of thing, which is partly why I had left in the first place. That and a falling out with one of the site's moderators, to which is a dead horse and needs no more beating. I had thought about removing the option to post anonymously. Prior to leaving before, to me it seemed like people gave more thoughtful comments when they could post anonymously. Now I'm thinking perhaps I'll turn that option off. That way at least others can see the names who leave such silliness behind. <br />Thank you for responding! It gives me encouragement to continue with this site. As I have just returned it would be easy to leave again. Last time leaving was hard because of the relationships I had established within the community. I am really hoping to see that in general people have a good outlook on this place. Thank you again! </p>

[GerrySiegel]

I think I know what you are asking, but not 100%. Do you wish perhaps to quote for the Casual Conversation a critique w/o names you find especially spiteful, bad spirited or negative i.e. without redeeming qualities. And also what you personally saw as an example of a helpful comment. I guess I wonder if it is substance or tone or maybe a little of both...Evaluation in general is the nature of the beast. ( Hard enough, in an office context, to give performance evaluation in face to face setting. Mandatory and one gets paid to do it. )

 

Broader context is this I observe: Folks do what is WorthWhile for Them,- right? Quid pro quo here should motivate others to receive helpful evaluations in pay for submiting them. Or in other words, pure altruism in people -to- people transactions is overshadowed by a reward in kind. You give me recognition and "likes" at the very least. A subject mined by social psychologists.

 

Thinking out loud now--Serious helpful and considered material is the goal but how to reward same. Should be obvious but is not. (Oldtimers may recall Bailey Seals with the face icon and heused to give everybody a flyby 2.5 to 3.0 or something without words. Making a personal statement,not a contribution.)

 

Sometimes you get a real you helped me to rethink that feature kind of thanks reply- in any language - for writing something that is "critical but honest and well meaning critical": Which is a reward. And a damn good idea.. It .raises the stakes for taking time to participate.

 

Unfortunately because of the nature of the beast, seems It only takes one or two rebuffs or remarks of offense at anything considered a 'jab' or 'slam' to poison such transactions after a while and drop things to lowest common denominator Meaning pablum..If one has the word- finesse to make a contribution without appearing dismissive or casual or ill tempered then you are a trul helpful member of the community. Welocme home! Others display in the Critique forum for more egoistic goals but that is OK and we know who is who...

 

It would be a shame to lose the opportunity for this kind of needed dialogue. Glad you came back, Lacey.

 

And a few other serious and knowledgable folks that left but returned and help to put the gloss back on PN. We all know who they are...Mahalo.

[Sanford]

<p>I find the relatively low participation on P/N as asset. I've asked a question or two on DPR only to find it buried three pages deep a few days later.</p>

[lacey_gribbin]

<p>Speaking of names I recognize - Here you are Gerry! :D You probably won't remember me at all, and I did have a different last name before. It's definitely good to see you again!!<br>

Basically I am trying to get a feel for whether or not people find this site as helpful as I once did, or if it has devolved into a collection of folks I'd rather not deal with. <br />I've always been considered blunt, and I'm quite accustomed to being taken far harsher than I intended. Normally it doesn't bother me that much when people lash back when the perceive they are being attacked. In this particular instance though I was lashed back in 6 separate photos of mine. Again I know what this person was doing and I really don't care about what they had to say specifically about each photo. Considering this is the first interactions I've had since I came back I wanted to know if this kind of behavior has become the new norm here. I saw a lot of this type of stuff happening more and more often when I left, and now here it is first thing upon returning. <br>

The spite-comments are on 6 photos, 5 of which were posted "anonymously". The one from the same person that have their name on it does make a good point. I get what they are saying, and that one doesn't annoy me nearly as much as the "anonymous" comments, except that they fired my phrasing back at me. It reminds me of my toddler throwing a tantrum. And really I only have patience for tantrums from her, not grown adults. :)<br>

So would you say that fit-throwing has become more common over the years? <br />I guess I should start relearning the whiners from the ones who honestly care. Thanks Gerry!! </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As Fred, for me critiques work quite well, but mostly thanks to finding a number of people whose way of giving comments suits me really well (not teacher-like telling what shutterspeed I should have used for a 'correct photo' but rather sharing impressions and how one experiences an image), and whose photo do inspire me to do the same. And slowly growing that circle - it's a two way street, and I am fine with it costing time. It's well worth it, and I find this place on a whole still having more mature, normal politeness than most large sites.<br>

I've had 'retaliation critiques'a few times. They're easy to spot, and frankly, well.... toddlers you wrote. I find that overrating the mental age. By a lot. It happens everywhere, though, part of the internet and the ease of hiding in a crowd of nameless posters. Frankly, I think p.net is quite clean in this sense, compared to other places.<br>

So, yes, there is sometimes some white noise of critiquers who want to act like they're divine and shout how inferior all other photos are. But most of the time, it's pretty good music instead. Invest time into finding people that give you good, honest feedback and ideas, who can inspire - they're there, but as said, it may take a bit of time and effort.</p>

[lacey_gribbin]

<p>Thank you Wouter! <br />It is good to see that perhaps I just had bad timing with this sort of thing. I was worried this type of behavior had become more commonplace than it was when I had left. <br>

I might also agree with you that calling them todder-ish is actually an insult to actual toddlers. lol</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred, given your remarks about an anonymous critic, do you feel the same way about those who use pseudonyms?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No.</p>

<p>A pseudonym still invites me to view the person's PN homepage, view their portfolio, and view their history of commentary, both in forums and on other photos. By being able to view their history of comments, I can put a single comment into perspective, which I can't do with an anonymous critic whose comment will come merely as an isolated statement with no further grounding.</p>

<p>So, for example, if I get a one word comment of "boring" from someone who's anonymous, I have no context with which to really understand that or within which it might even be constructive to me. If, on the other hand, someone is using a pseudonym (which allows me access to their PN history of critiques and comments and portfolio), if I got to that person's page and see what I consider to be great photos and see that he has thoughtfully given insights on other people's work, I might take his "boring" a little more to heart. Even if I ultimately didn't agree, having some backing and context to the "boring" would give me pause and be reason for me to consider it further. A simple anonymous "boring" with nothing else to go on just seems unconstructive and very easily dismissable. </p>

<p>I understand that some people critique anonymously for fear of retribution or juvenile behavior if they give a negative critique or have harsh words for someone's photo. But I also understand that some do it because they lack the cojones to show their face.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Now, to be clear, if an anonymous viewer at least bothered, within his isolated post, to explain why he thought the photo was boring, that could be helpful even without context. Sometimes a good explanation needs no further backing. But a simple comment like "boring" coming from an anonymous poster seems more nasty and feckless to me than anything else.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred, getting anonymous critics like "boring" does not deserve your attention. Forget about it before you consider it as "nasty".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, if you read the thread you'll see that I didn't get such a comment. I responded to Lacey, who started this thread and seemed upset by a few comments she received. We've had a good conversation about it and I'm glad I could be supportive of Lacey and am glad Lacey has come back to PN after being discouraged and away for a while. After discussing it with Lacey, I was asked a question by Michael who I also wanted to respond to. What's getting my attention are fellow PN members and their concerns and questions. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred, sorry it took so long for me to respond to your comments about pseudonyms. The reason for my question is found in your statement. "If someone's not open enough to put their name to a comment, I'm not sure I'd put a whole lot of stock in it . . . . In my opinion, the same can be said for someone who critiques using a pseudonym.<br>

<br>

Mind you, I don't question a person's motives for using a pseudonym. It's just that it tends to put a damper on dialogue by dehumanizing the experience. <br>

<br>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, in saying "putting a name to their comment" I was speaking euphemistically. The name doesn't matter to me. Knowing your name doesn't mean much to me. Pseudonym or real name, it's simply a sign. Your online presence is your portfolio and your comments. That's what fills you out as a person and gives me a clue about you. So much of the Internet comes with the use of screen names and pseudonyms. I'm kind of used to that and don't see it as dehumanizing, especially when there's a body of work and a history of comments to go along with it. Anonymous, on the other hand, doesn't hook me up with your photos or your comments, so it gives me nothing. I think there's a big difference between allowing me access to your portfolio and your history of comments with a pseudonym and not allowing me to know who you are at all by using Anonymous.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>OK, Fred. I think I see where you've been going with this.</p>