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

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gerry, they wouldn't all fit on the screen at the same time anyway. But I do appreciate your wanting to do that kind of comparison, because I like to do those comparisons as well. So, what I do is open each photo in a tab which allows me to easily and very quickly tab back and forth among a few photos for comparison sake.</p>

[mhahn]

 

 

<p>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>

 

 

 

 

<p ><a name="00dUuG"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 18, 2015; 07:54 p.m.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >-------------------------------------------------</p>

<p >So they are discussing some of the big issues, which is what I think we should be able to do on Photo Net. Would make it a more interesting site, in my opinion. </p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

Martin, I think the message is clear. And understandable if kind of regrettable. If all of the adults watched how they handled discussions and tempered the language managers would not have to make PN policy based on the relatively few ill tempered or adolescent tempered. I understand and accept that decision even as it is kind of unfortunate. Off Topic was a nice pleasant feature when it was nice and pleasant; meaning when it stayed cool. Also true that some subjects within the broad categories of politics and economics and social views have shown themselves touchstones for anger. Result- bad vibes in community . Not just moderator problems.

[mhahn]

<p>I know the message is clear, Gerry. I just don't know why that has to be the message. Whereas some sites may let discussions become too uncivil, Photo Net's policy is too restrictive. I'm not a student of Photo Net discussions, but in my casual perusals I never saw anything that was even close to being truly offensive (and I've certainly seen stuff that is, elsewhere).</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>So they are discussing some of the big issues,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The big issues relevant to their site. Why don't you join up there and post an article on guns and see how long it lasts.<br>

<br>

There are plenty of sites for discussing other topics. It's not that difficult to bookmark them and use the mouse on your computer to go to them. </p>

[mhahn]

<p>My personal opinion is that moderators should not interfere in a discussion that has gone "off topic" unless it has also become uncivil.</p>

<p>Have pity on the poor discussion that just wants to go where its inclinations take it.</p>

<p>FYI: I don't want to start a discussion about guns. </p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

Politics, religion, and sex...the unholy trio. Now add guns. We never touched on photography in our school and Navy dining hall either.. Martin, I observed some mean sounding, hostile, in your face uncivil talk at times in them old OT. Not much in volume but enough to cast a pall over relationships that extended beyond that forum.

 

On private Facebook blogs like here one can stretch to just about any of the unholy trio with Jim Wright although the format of FB is kind of limiting for sure,

 

 

http://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle?fref=tl_fr_box&pnref=lhc.friends

 

One can get red meat discussions going via above just as an example of a free for all environment , with lots or let us say "latitude."

 

But even there, the owner and designer and blogger Jim on FB keeps a tight rein on what he deems nonsense talk. A dilemma I suppose. How to give way to community input with a lid on propriety out of bounds and who decides the bounds and who mans the gates.... Josh Root admin used to close discussions that got out of hand. I am sure he did not care to do it and end a good give and take that gave more than it took or vice versa... ( I recall he privately scolded me one time some little bit of talk on line that was out of bounds, or side stepping wise, and I just didn't notice . You know..one gets worked up in the late hours..with a glass of Merlot.

 

My thought here for what it is worth. As I observe from a distance, PN is fighting for a presence (ieven survival-see the long responses to Dick Arnold's post). As a top photographic meeting venue. Good. This is where I keep my personal photos at least for now. ..

 

So it goes.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Maybe the best way for us to stimulate what might otherwise be an Off Topic discussion of value is to make a photograph relevant to the topic, post it to our portfolios, and invite discussion of the photo and topic. I've taken part in various political, social, and cultural discussions, all related to specific photos, here on PN, with no trouble or curtailment at all. These photos weren't posted as pretenses merely to discuss something otherwise not allowed here. They were genuinely related to various topics of interest. </p>

<p>Photography can be very relevant. Of course, that's up to us.</p>

<p>Maybe it's not so much whether a given topic is relevant to a photography site but whether a given photo addresses something relevant. My experience has been that if I make or come across a socially, politically, or culturally relevant photo, the discussion naturally and authentically follows.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Fred, you make a reasonable point.</p>

<p>Gerry, you seem like such a civil-minded person that it makes me mad just to think of anyone telling you that you need to tone it down (not sure what that says about me).</p>

<p>To everyone: Did you know that DP Review has an "off-topic" forum? Although I've never learned to negotiate their forums very well. Can only see one post at a time, which makes them too frustrating and time-consuming.</p>

<p>Anyway, Glenn et al., I get it. You don't have to make the point again about off-topic discussions not making a comeback (unless you want to; in no way am I telling you what you should or shouldn't say!).</p>

<p>Getting back to critiquing the beta site, I checked out 500px, which Tim Lookingbill referenced in a post above, and as he says, the beta site seems to share a stylistic leaning toward slickness with 500px. Doesn't seem like an aesthetic that I'd find appealing.</p>

[mike dixon]

"My personal opinion is that moderators should not interfere in a discussion that has gone 'off topic' unless it has also become uncivil."

 

Most people would see things such as going to the library to practice public speaking or going to a book club to argue about sports as uncivil acts. Disregarding the rules and intentions of the site, the forum, and/or a particular thread (and, in the process, showing no respect for the other users who are here because of their interest in photography) is fundamentally selfish and arrogant behavior. It is inherently uncivil.

 

If moderators didn't interfere with posts that have not become "uncivil" (by your definition), the forums would be filled with spam.

[mhahn]

<p>You can certainly go to the library to practice public speaking in a room set aside for that use, just as you can have a discussion off the topic of photography in a forum set aside for that purpose without disturbing a purely photography-oriented discussion (or you could if it were allowed).</p>

[mike dixon]

<p><em>you can have a discussion off the topic of photography in a forum set aside for that purpose without disturbing a purely photography-oriented discussion (or you could if it were allowed)</em><br>

<em><br /></em>You've conveniently ignored the fact that the off-topic forum was closed largely <strong>because</strong> of its negative effect on photography discussions and its overall negative impact on the site. As others have noted, if you have a strong desire to discuss non-photographic topics, there are plenty of other sites where you can indulge yourself. Insisting that photo.net should have such a forum is comparable to insisting that a book club should devote twenty minutes per meeting to arguing about sports, that town hall meetings should devote time to practicing opera singing, or that a science conference about quantum dynamics should have presentations on landscape photography.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>But possibly the book club members occasionally discuss (I hope not argue about) a book on sports, and the science conference attendees discuss the art of Eric Heller (http://www.ericjhellergallery.com/)?</p>

<p>Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever . . . </p>

[James G. Dainis]

Would there be any point to going back and forth on this forever? It has already been decided that there will be no Off Topic forum. Let me repeat that. It has already been decided that there will be no Off Topic forum. For people who have trouble with reading comprehension, have someone explain that to you.

[AJHingel]

<p>Yes, James, thank you sincerely, I think I have understood that there will be no Off Topic forum.</p>

<p>So Photonet should become like a golf club where only golf can be discussed, or like a fishing tour where only fish and fishing relevant issues can be discuss. In my view a bad decision for Photonet.</p>

<p>As a final salut to the now defunct Off-Topic forum, can I invite you to read a short text that our good friend Josh Root wrote a few years back concerning the Off-Topic forum:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>When I created the photo.net OT forum, I knew we would be in for some contentious threads. But the site needed a place for non-photographic stuff and to dump the political threads that tend to pop up on any forum. I'm happy that the OT forum has been as successful as it has. It's nice to be able to ask the assembled masses here "What scotch is good" or "does anyone else like NASCAR" or "How long will a dead possum stink for". It brings us a little closer together and is a great way of getting information from a source that you already trust somewhat. Every community needs a place where it can connect on something different than the main focus of the site and OT forums do that well.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And for those of you who wish to relive the discussions in the de Off-Topic, and who might not be satisfied with just rumours about them, and for old times sake, you can still find them here, all <strong>4833</strong> of them : http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/?category=uncategorized</p>

<p>Enjoy :)</p>

[G-P]

<p>If we had the time we could provide you to numerous links of discussions that got completely out of hand that resulted in good members leaving never to return. This we all know, and I'm sure regret. <br>

What I can tell you is that we're open to OT returning in some form at a future date, however it won't happen we get 2.0 off the ground. BUT something that would be closely moderated yet still have some solid structure with sub-categories the topics would need to stick to in our discussions. Using the examples above....Food & Drink (for you foodies and scotch lovers amongst us), "An interesting thing happened to me today" (where you could share a funny story) hopefully with photos, Sports Lovers (NFL, Nascar, Cricket, Rugby - you name it).....having said all of this - it will be easier to do once we are on the 2.0 platform. We could have some fun coming up with interesting the sub-categories of off-topic...and we'd need a moderator to closely monitor so we don't end up in hot water again discussing live wire subjects that hit boiling points. <a href="

you're telling me there's a chance?</a> So who wants to be OT champion and start a new thread giving us sub-category suggestions in our Site Help Forum? Please keep in mind we're not creating anything new on current site as schemas are all in place for data transfers to 2.0 so this would be a 2.1 thing for us. </p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Glenn,<br>

Is there going to be a Macro Photography forum on the new site? </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Glenn, censuring subject within a forum instead of censuring whole forums is of course progress, but in my eyes, and I will not surprise you, not good enough!</p>

<p>If you want Photonet to be filled with engaged photographers who actively live in todays multi-cultural and more and more polarized world, you should accept that we do indeed discuss subjects and we do indeed have opinions which sometimes do not please everyone. Photonet should be made in the image of the life your photography enthusiast members live and not an artificial sanitized sub-part of that world. Overall, such a life confirming strategy for Photonet gives you more members and a more active membership. Some will leave, without doubt, but many more will come. If it is not in version 2.0, let it be in version 2.1 or 2.x as you wish. Velocius firmior</p>

<p> </p>

[G-P]

<p>@Laura - adding once we are in 2.0. <br>

@Anders - not sure what to say my friend. At this point, we will agree to disagree. Thank you for your continued support and we appreciate your feelings towards OT. A one man enter one man leave Thunderdome type of OT - it simply won't work - we've proven its a liability not an asset. We know we can't please everyone, however we'll try to please most. I've spoken my peace my OT - that is all I have on that front and I think the OT discussion has been exhausted. </p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Glenn,<br>

Many thanks. It will be a good addition.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Let's agree to disagree, with all respect, Glenn. One thing we do agree on though, is that the OT discussion has been exhausted here in Photonet, and for some, I'm sure, have been exhausting too.<br>

Good luck with 2.0. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

Martin, to clarify my statement. No I was not scolded for saying something uncivil. It was a talking stink about someone with someone in another forum which was judged speaking 'behind someone's back.' Code of conduct wise. Back channeling we used to call it...before back channel became de rigeur in public life :-) What we might call a back fence jab at another member.

 

And it was a valid point that Josh caught and called to my attention.

 

I may lament the good parts of the OT which Anders has helped us recall, thanks Anders.

The decision to cut OT was made by the moderators without consulting the membership and it was judged detrimental to the overall success of the site. Which was OK. Unfortunate, but OK.

 

We could not have our desserts, because we squirted our whipped toppings at EACH OTHER like juveniles with a whipped cream squirter. So no tutti frutti.... Who can argue that it is not photography and we are after all Photo Netsky not the food channel... Never meant to be. That is why it was off topic, but no matter, worth gaining understanding of the issue. I give on that Martin,...

 

New subject..By the way, Glenn, I did no research on this. I am lately thinking how nice it will be to have a quick way to highlight a quotation in forum text. To separate it easily from the content of the author. I mention it in passing. A technical item, along with the reprogramming to accept https....

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Gerry, just put your cursor in the text you want to highlight and click on the quote mark icon at the top of the text box you're typing in.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Like this!</p>

</blockquote>

[GerrySiegel]

Fred, it doesn't work for me. Either it is Apple OS Yosemite, or my lack of know- how. I guess I am suggesting again that Glenn and the redesign crew make it a snaperoo. Please. Perhaps even in a different color? Reduce the disatisfiers and this is one. Or, if there is a how to /walk through guide, and no not HTML, am open.

 

Just spent some time trying to quote and format a quote from another member in the Mirrorless Forum. My text just kept getting wrapped a way I did not. Can't figure it. Something is screwball. It could be me though I want to reject that idea.( Aside. Unusually hot languid temperatures for our islands. Someone wrote in the paper that if we wanted this kind of hot steamy weather we could have chosen Florida as home. But I digress, sorry) I could copy a quote in Pages, my text editor, and play with it then cut and paste it back, Nah not worth it.

[AJHingel]

<p>I seem to remember that we some months ago had discussion (between some of us!) concerning stopping using the highlighting of texts in forum discussions (too heavy, unesthetic...) and instead using "...". However, always nice to know how it is being done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no idea why it does not work for you Gerry (you have to insert a paragraph break for it to work)</p>

</blockquote>