Having checked out the Beta for the new version of Photo.net. . .

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>+1 Fred!</p>

<p>Will there be a way to just search for images by view, admire, favorite numbers or overall score numbers?</p>

<p>That would seem a lot easier to implement than embarking on a forensic style sorting investigation on new uploads of public photos having to count back a numbers of days they're no longer new uploads which I fail to understand how those low numbers would indicate lack of popularity over just not being on the site long enough for anyone to notice.</p>

<p>Besides, I couldn't clearly understand Glenn's three methods of finding unpopular images.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Thanks for your explanation, Glenn. Much appreciated. <br>

The new site is without a doubt a massive undertaking and there's simply no pleasing everyone, so I do understand the value judgments you and the team must make in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise.<br>

I hope I wasn't overly blunt and will be looking forward to further enhancements. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Glenn, my point wasn't so much about how we, as users, will choose to filter through photos on whatever numerical bases are available. It's more about how the site positions things and messages to the users what's available and potentially worthy of notice. I'm considering that there should be some resources put toward actively supporting beginners and less popular photos. For example, we currently have a "Beginner Forum" for questions but beginners are consistently reminded that it's not a place to ask for critique of individual photos. There may well be a need on PN for a critique forum specifically for beginners, who are not going to get a lot of attention within the overall sea of more experienced photographers but where I'll bet a bunch of more generous experienced photographers will go to engage with beginners who show an interest in learning and asking questions about their photos specifically. It's not about users utilizing various filtering mechanisms to try and acquaint themselves with such photographers. It's about the site deciding whether such a specific place would be of benefit and is warranted.</p>

<p>I also can envision a curated forum which highlights lesser-known and less-popular photographers who are doing things that, without some site-supported recognition, will not get seen simply because these photographers are out of the mainstream and not doing what generally passes for appreciated work. A place where a lot of interested users might go precisely to be exposed to work they might not otherwise recognize or pay attention to. Work that might not stand out to a lot of people unless it was pointed out to them. Maybe there would even be some introductory commentary by a "curatorial" entity of some type. That's often what galleries and museums do. They expose us to relative unknowns and get us to take a look at something we probably wouldn't have found on our own. There are photographers on PN who are passing by unnoticed because they don't do a lot of networking, don't give out a whole lot of critiques, don't participate in contests, in short don't play a lot of the games that will get one seen but who are nevertheless doing worthwhile, compelling, and interesting work. I think the site has a quiet and somewhat hidden resource there for showcasing such work and adding a dimension that is not popularity based. If PN wants to be a premier photography site, it might do well to invest a bit in highlighting and even pushing some of its more esoteric photographic strains.</p>

[G-P]

<p>@ Fred - I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions on ways we can welcome new comers, beginners to our community. As you can imagine, supporting beginners and new comers to PN is top of our list of growing the site and community in the future. Your ideas are ones we can do and even expand upon soon after we launch so lets keep the ideas and discussion on this topic flowing, we're all ears on this subject of welcoming new users. </p>

<p>On current site - its not uncommon to get emails from newbies on asking why their photos aren't getting the kind of exposure they thought they'd get and its because (again on current site), unless you make available for ratings or critiques they do not appear in the gallery. They are in effect a needle in a haystack at that point - unless they network and/or learn that they must submit for critiques or ratings. We have emails that go out new users with instructions on how to use photo.net effectively, but those don't always get read thus the gap. We have plans for expanded customer service resources that include chat so questions can be asked and answered in real time. In 2.0 if the newbie uploads their work will get exposure by default - the same obstacles don't exist as they do on the current site. All this said - we want the ideas to keep coming on ways we can effectively welcome new comers to the site. Additionally, we are also working on ways to bring back some of the photographers that don't visit us as often anymore...starting by asking them to test out the new stage reaching out to a number of photographers individually asking them for feedback. So keep it coming, we're all ears. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Copy of PN message I sent directly to Glenn . . .</p>

<p>I appreciate the fact that you included me in the group selected to review 2.0. Quite honestly, all I've done so far is to take a very quick browse. As a result, I really can't offer anything concrete, much less more meaningful, at this time. However, I must say that the larger presentation of sample images really grabbed me.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Glenn - Is the vibe score part of the retooled rating system that's been mentioned/promised from time to time before?</p>

[Doug Obert]

<p>Will PN 2.0 be utilizing Lightroom's publishing service?</p>

[Timo Hartikainen]

<p>Lots of messages, but I couldn't find information about the launch date of the new site. Glenn.. Any thoughts about that?</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I honestly don't get what the new site is supposed to be. I find it confusing and not very inviting.</p>

<p>Below are Michael Chang's words. I repeat them here, because I can't say it any better myself:</p>

<p>"I have found the site to be more cluttered with superfluous information and text I don't want to see, <em>and more difficult to construct a mental map of the site so that I can always know where I am</em>.<br>

<br /> <em>I can browse for an hour and still not feel like I've gotten a sense of what Photo.net is about</em>" [emphasis added].</p>

<p> </p>

[Timo Hartikainen]

<p>I was thinking about an option in the profile settings, which maybe could bring back the "retro/old school"-mode, if someone doesn't like the new version. Maybe it's not possible to create, I don't know..just a thought.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I do not have time to do a comprehensive comment on your project so I will have to feed in as much as I can in a mere a la carte way, and trust it might spark a thought or two.

 

I spend more time in forums than I do in critiques latyely so I am not engaged enough to get excited by "vibe" score although that seems a bit loony of a title if you want to know.

 

Now in heading to the forums we are all geared to look for, the new site appears to be restrictive and more fenced off than the old. What I suggest is a reshuffling and recombinant form of the old standby categories and clarification ... For example Mirrorless is fine and understood, and we may not need an old Olympus or micro 4/3 one unless, perhaps OM legacy Olympus but then that one fits in Modern Film Cameras,- this will take some thinking through more than I can digest too, and consolidation and rationalization may at first rub some users wrong,-maybe a lot who have got used to the old byways,- but hey. Perhaps a better ID of what the forums cover. And maybe a textual lead to the terms of content and the key moderator for same.

 

Another idea for trial that has been on my mind is this- that it might be nice to see a feature that constitutes a photo essay all on one page. Number of images to be limited to six perhaps. As a basis for weekly discussion.

 

On that same subject, I will toss out what might be a grenade. Is it against fair use for established images to be displayed for discussion purposes. Would Steichen family trust objec? Would that be dangerous ground. The lawyers need to check that out. Last couple thoughts for today: Get the programmers to allow the https form of URL. Stat. And permit sizes larger than 700 to be downsized without a link, a pain in the whatsis.

 

I did not notice or look, but assume you will make it easy, ie without keyboard calisthenics, to put in italics again like in the old days. Wishing you and the team well. We hang together. ( Not separately. ) A community of 'oldtimers' does appreciate the size of the project.

[GerrySiegel]

For a technical discussion site that I found really easy to navigate is this one for an internet streaming group of products. and their users and fanciers... With a quick lead- in to the question on offer. Possibly headlined and even edited some or abbreviated by the moderator. Yet easy to find the topic and see what is the latest answer or advice or age of the matter and a link to other sources. . Simple. Effective. Un glamorous. Navigable like a spreadsheet chart a bit.

 

http://forums.slimdevices.com/index.php

[David_Cavan]

<p>If photo.net is going to attract anyone except the few hundred old guys (I'm not sure the number is that large, but let's assume it is) that currently hang around a dramatic difference has to be created. The new site does that, and as I emailed Glenn, I think it does it well. I've been involved in a few major website design changes as part of the design team, and I've obviously experienced it myself many times over the past 15 or so years as websites have evolved. Many of them I hated to start with, but I've never abandoned a website because of the look-and-feel changes. We get used to the new look much more quickly than people want to admit, and quite frankly this new site should not be aimed at us old-timers. If it is not aimed at new users, then perhaps we should just fold the tent and quietly steal away - this site can not continue as-is, where-is, in my opinion.</p>

[G-P]

<p>@martin h - maybe you missed my comments made on Sep 09, 2015; 11:49 a.m. answering Michael Chang's post. I need to ask....What is photo.net to you? Why do you come here? Not to over simplify....but is it to discover, develop and discuss photography? Because that is in a nutshell what photo.net hopefully is, i largely believe has been...and our hope....always will be. But please tell me - what is photo.net to you? </p>

[G-P]

<p>@ David - I had to laugh. Trust me we wouldn't be going through all this effort if we were down to a few hundred, and as you can imagine we're trying our best to please everyone, but realize at the same time that is a tall task. Our hope and expectation is that our (as you put it) "old timers" can be mentors to new audience, teach what you have learned, nurture and fuel younger generations passion for photography. 2.0 was built to be a platform for people to become inspired by other photographers, watch what they do (by viewing recent uploads easily found in the member center) feel comfortable asking one other for advice, enjoy the art and the science of photography. We hope and expect that 2.0 will be a community for all walks of life that have an interest and passion for photography...regardless of age, gender or any other segment. People use this site in many different ways - some use only the forums, (some of those aren't here for the right reasons and would prefer to discuss guns, politics, religion, etc). Some read forums, some participate once they are comfortable. It may be a surprise to some but we have regular members of the site don't even venture into the forums - they spend their time viewing photos and reading what is written - experimenting on their own & sharing in the galleries. In terms of numbers (because I know you are all wondering) - we get over 3M visitors worldwide with over 12M-15M page views/month. Upwards of 20% of our traffic is now through mobile devices - take a look around - many people (sadly) use their phones...maybe too much. Walk down the city street, take notice how many people are looking at their phones. Personally I think it takes away from what could be (I would consider) normal conversations you have with the people around you...but that is a discussion for another day. Point is - we're not a few hundred - people use this site in many ways, not just the forums. We hope 2.0 will be used and accepted by new and old members - even those that want to use photo.net on those dang blasted cell phones. </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Thanks for that insight, Glenn. When you see the same names repeatedly it certainly appears to be a small group. I'm glad there are larger numbers, and I'm especially glad that much of the interaction is about actual, posted images and explanations. That's really where the rest of the net has gone, and that's where the competition lies - if p.net doesn't attract someone, they will go elsewhere. Again, I'm happy with the redesign, and find most of the non-technical issues to be relatively unimportant - we'll get over the look-and-feel change pretty quickly once we figure out which clicks get us to what we want to see.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I want to comment on one thing you mentioned, Glenn. ....on some old timer ( chronologically at least though still keen of mind)interests and your planned offerings.

 

>>(some of those aren't here for the right reasons and would prefer to discuss guns, politics, religion, etc). <<

 

Q:I take this to suggest as we move on to V 2.0, tha even t the idea of restoring an Off Topic Forum is off the table, pau? . Is that a correct reading. . -gs-

[G-P]

<p>@ Gerry - The short answer is no, off topic is not a part 2.0. Photo.net is a site that is focused on the subject of photography. We have struggled to answer the question - What place do those subjects have on a site dedicated to photography? We can't find a reason why they are relevant to our site. Furthermore, we've proven in the past that all those subjects do is create problems between members and turned off new members. In the end we determined that it was more of a liability than an asset to our community. I know there are some that feel differently and don't like the decision - however there are many that agree with this decision. Hopefully that answers your question, even though it wasn't likely the answer you wanted.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Glenn,</p>

<p>I'm kind of surprised to hear that there are so many Photo Net users (I thought the makeover was an attempt to keep the site viable), but if there are, why make such radical changes?</p>

<p>The beta site looks and feels like a totally different site than the current Photo Net. Really, if not for the name, I don't think I'd recognize it.</p>

<p>I think Photo Net's current home page is basically pretty well designed, although it does look a little dated. It's like the home page of a newspaper: there's a little bit to read on the home page itself, there are links to other parts of the site, there's a link to your personal home page, etc. It works well.</p>

<p>Does the beta site even have a home page? There just seem to be these oversize bands of content that you have to scroll through. I feel like I'm sitting too close to the screen at the movie theater.</p>

<p>David makes the point that people get used to redesigned websites a lot quicker than they think they will, and I think that's true in most cases, but, for instance, I'm still annoyed by the redesign of CNN's home page (and go there less often as a result of it) and the Washington Post's home page (although that's a recent fait accompli).</p>

<p>In my opinion, the redesign represents a wish to imbue the site itself with an inspirational sort of tone. I'm not in favor of that. I think the site itself should have a more neutral tone.</p>

<p>As for disallowing discussions of subjects off the topic of photography, I think that's just silly, and my sense is that it's probably bad business. A little diversity in subject matter is appealing to me, at least. A focus on nothing but photography can sometimes feel rather narrow.<br>

-----------------------<br>

p.s. Glenn, I will try to get back to your question, "What does Photo Net mean to you?" at some point.</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

Thanks Glenn. As long as it was a considered decision. I found it helpful to have a place to learn about many non controversial things. But I do recall some nasty food fights. Understood. I was thinking yesterday where can I ask about a cel phone port I think is called a 20 pin made by Samsung which no one younger than 40 would likely know about. ( and Google was not so much my friend there, as they are following their advertisers and 20 pin was more an EU thing I do believe ) It leads to a fascination area of standardization and proprietary ports in a lot of photo products. No real place to fit it in the forums, but hey I have to agree with you. Meaning being doctrinaire is sometimes the way we have to go...to avoid more problems than attracting interest. Like the loss of food discussion which is not so easily found or is it, I am not a foodie, but many here are. And the contribution of the world wide community on items in passing.... Anyway, I got it and I thank you for giving the OT a shot and thought or two. Aloha. Gerry.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> Like the loss of food discussion which is not so easily found or is it</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's very easy to find and people who want to read about and discuss food can go to a site like http://www.chowhound.com/m and to www.epicurious.com, and to http://www.foodnetwork.com/ There is no discussion of photography at these sites, there is discussion of food as it should be. Most of us that are into food and cooking know these sites. And if we want to discuss photography, we go to photography sites.</p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

I would assume that the community posting guidelines are being re worked as part of the overall overhaul process along the way. I already mentioned the question of the 700 size limit. And also I will reiterate the thing about fair use for discussion in discussion of photos pages, where fair use may be now an option. True we here are sensitive to misuse of our work, but perhaps the Terns of Use could allow member opt in to the site for showing a photo vs just a link to it. Something to ponder.

 

Even for the work of Cole Weston or Larry Schiller, commercial /pro photographers (I would for instance have enjoyed to look at several of the photos that Fred G put on one page to compare them on the page as we evaluated in discussion about same. even by ones all over the Internet and common as houseflies. I am just suggesting that learning and discussion is a fair use that would not be decried. When a professor shows a photo on the classroom screen is a good case in point... Or is it, I will let the professionals rule o that one)

 

In a Facebook world are we a little too what shall we say 'dancing on eggshells' in this regard.. Is the FBI on our tail or do we have to be like Caesar's wife as photographers.... I pose this because I really do not know but am interested. The photos at the bottom of this page are displayed and not linked, and it bothers no one. Just saying.

 

Josh wrote the following some while back. See if it still is good doctrine---Recognize better safe than sorry. No harm in opening up some idea for consideration. Can be 'on the table' i.e. tabled as discussion, for ever after..:-).

 

 

"Any image you post should be your own work. If you want to reference an image shot by someone else, please link to it rather than post the image itself."

[mhahn]

<p>How about this: "Have the recent rains helped the drought," on Chowhound.<br>

Posted in the "not about food" thread (although most of the posts seem to be about food in any case).<br>

http://www.chowhound.com/post/rains-helped-drought-1015256</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>although most of the posts seem to be about food in any case</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Right, there's nothing about guns/nationality/photography etc.<br>

<br>

And that thread is very relevant to food, farming is mentioned and some of the biggest issues with the drought are around food production. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>where fair use may be now an option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

"Fair use" is a legal term with a legal test. If you leave it up to users, it will fail. If you don't leave it up to users, you have to pay someone to sit there and go through every single instance. It's not practical. Of course plenty of sites (pinterest being the most notable) completely ignore the issue, which is the only real alternative to not allowing posting by other people. So it's either wholesale copyright violation (unless there is a paid staff to monitor every photo posting) or it's not allowed at all. Most serious photographers would choose the latter.</p>