Visibility of our photos

[longroute]

<p>I’m new here and I’d like to understand better the functioning and the policy of this site.<br>

In the FAQ can be read:<br>

<strong>“Where and what can I post?</strong><br>

Once you are registered, you may post photos in the photo.net <a href="/gallery">Gallery</a>,”<br>

Which gallery? As far as I have seen there is no gallery available for all but only galleries for top photographers or featured samplings photos, i.e. photos chosen by the staff. So that sentence is incorrect. When a newly registered member like myself post a photo, he can only post photos in his/her portfolio, which means nobody will be able to see them unless:<br>

1) the staff here decide that they are top photos and so deserving to be included in one of the galleries.<br>

2) he/she submit the photo for a critique - but only one is shown in the home page: where are all the others?<br>

3) He/she comments one photo seen in the top photos galleries and find a “top” photographer kind enough to have a look at his/her portfolio (not granted that he/she will leave a comment).<br>

Are there any other means to make one’s photo visible?<br>

What is the use to post one’s photo in a site like this if it’s so difficult to get a feedback?<br>

I have commented a lot of photos but apart from a couple of friends, I received very few comments. Is there something wrong with my photos or with my understanding of the functioning of this site?<br>

Last but not least: to submit a photo for critiques is a good idea but from my experience it seems that this is interpreted as if all the other photos posted in one’s portfolio don’t need to be commented. Do I need to submit all my photos to get a comment? Is it feasible?<br>

Thanks for your concern,<br>

Donato</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Not a site admin, nor responsible for anything here, but I think you're misreading what is meant with "Gallery". With "gallery", your personal gallery is meant; for examples yours is http://www.photo.net/photos/longroute . The galleries shown on the homepage are indeed specific, and managed by the site team. The sentence isn't incorrect, but it is indeed confusing. It might be better to call the personal gallery strictly "portfolio" and the administered collections "galleries".<br>

In fact, your photos are already visible; when you are logged on, in your workspace, you will find the URL for your gallery. So, no need for the three points you mentioned, though those do result in additional traffic to your portfolio (obviously). But one of the nice things about photo.net is that the ranking with search engines is good. I searched for your name on Google and Bing, and in both cases, your photo.net page came up 1st.</p>

<p>Getting critiques requires patience; it takes some time to find like-minded photographers, and in time they'll visit your pages after you left comments on their photos. I see you've been on this site for about two weeks - it will take longer than that. Also, no need to submit all your photos, people will come in time and through a critique request also visit your other photos, and leave comments on them. In fact, more often I comment on a different photo than what the request was made for - again, have a bit of patience. The photo critique forum doesn't have a load of contributors, but if you find the right people, you will get quality feedback. Just don't expect it to happen within a week.</p>

 

[longroute]

<p>Wouter, thank you for your availability and kind answer.<br>

To say the whole truth it answers partially to some of my questions but the core of the problem remain untackled. But obviously only an admin can do that.<br>

I took the term "gallery" for what is meant in the FAQ page, if you notice it the word is a link and the link leads you to the Photo galleries in the home page of the site, so it was not used to mean the personal gallery.<br>

"In fact, your photos are already visible"<br>

This is IMO the main issue: the photos are visible to me and not to the general public. I have attended several photographic websites and in almost all of them you can find a general gallery where the photos of ALL members are posted and so visible and available for comments or votes.<br>

In some of them there are three or four galleries where the photos are selected according to the points they get. But the common and basic concept is that all the photos can be browsed by everybody and therefore have a chance to be evaluated and get a feedback (which is for me the main reason why we post them).<br>

Here it seems there is a more elitist principle, probably to avoid to show to the public the mediocre or ugly ones (which is understandable) or perhaps even to avoid unpleasant quarrels over the too direct and severe critiques. I agree that there should be a kind of filter or selection but It fails me to understand how this filter works here.<br>

Receiving only one or too comments is not an objective evaluation. Unless the rating is done by a good amount of people statistically it has no value. So it seems that the only criteria applied here to select a photo for the real "open to the public" galleries is the indisputable judgement of some admin or perhaps veteran member, versus the more democratic selection operated in the other sites. I hope my idea is clearer now.<br>

I think I have been patient enough but sincerely the impression one gets (at least one who is not a "top" photographer) is that one is not welcomed.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Wouter wrote: "In fact, your photos are already visible" [in your own gallery]</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Donato responded: This is IMO the main issue: <em><strong>the photos are visible to me and not to the general public.</strong></em> I have attended several photographic websites and in almost all of them you can find a general gallery where the photos of ALL members are posted and so visible and available for comments or votes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is your main concern, then it occurs to me to be incorrect.</p>

<p><strong>ALL</strong> the photos that you post in your <strong><em>own</em></strong> Gallery and you administer as “public” are available to be viewed and also commented upon. For example as I just did here:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18088017">http://www.photo.net/photo/18088017</a></p>

<p>If you want to actively seek feedback and critique, then select your photos for critique and as Wouter advises be patient. Comment and critique others’ photos to create rapport with other members who have similar desires to yourself and that way you will assist each other with critiques. When you comment on another member's photo, you could make an invitation to view your work.</p>

<p>Creating rapport takes both time and also effort.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[longroute]

<p><strong>Dear William,<br /></strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>First of all thanks for your prompt answer.<br>

<strong>your wrote:<br /></strong><br>

<strong>"ALL</strong> the photos that you post in your <strong><em>own</em></strong> Gallery and you administer as “public” are available to be viewed and also commented upon"</p>

<p>Sorry but I cannot accept your assertion. There is a huge difference between being <strong>theoretically</strong> visible because my photo can be found once I know the <strong>link</strong> (as you did) and being immediately visible in a gallery by everyone who browse that gallery. It seems strange to me that you missed to see this difference. Have you not attended any other photographic site?</p>

<p>It would have been more appropriate on your part to state clearly that this is your chosen policy and idea of how the site must function. I cannot object to your choice of course but I think I have the right to be informed correctly.</p>

<p>"Comment and critique others’ photos to create rapport with other members who have similar desires to yourself and that way you will assist each other with critiques. When you comment on another member's photo, you could make an invitation to view your work."</p>

<p>I'm a newbie here but I have a lot of experience in other photographic sites and I know the importance of what you say. And that is just what I did since the first day I joined in. It seems that the pace here is rather slow and that might explain my disappointment in getting a feedback.</p>

<p>I'll see later what will happens...</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry but I cannot accept your assertion. There is a huge difference between being <strong>theoretically</strong> visible because my photo can be found once I know the <strong>link</strong> (as you did) and being immediately visible in a gallery by everyone who browse that gallery. It seems strange to me that you missed to see this difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I simply went to your Bio page (by clicking on your name in this thread) and I looked at your gallery of photos, there is not much theory in that procedure: however you will choose to interpret facts as those facts occur to you and you will choose to do what you will choose to do.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you not attended any other photographic site?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. many. And I am a member of several.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It would have been more appropriate on your part to state clearly that this is your chosen policy and idea of how the site must function. I cannot object to your choice of course but I think I have the right to be informed correctly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By the way - in future please refrain from instructing me as to what is appropriate or not appropriate for me to write. I was simply answering the main area of your concern with facts. I made no comment on the policies of this site. I do not make policy here, anyway.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Donato, in my experience with managing websites (non photo related, but content-driven sites with serious amounts of traffic), a central list of images as you suggest as "the" entry point to find images, is not all that effective at all. Most people either search (for name, theme, category), or they land directly on a specific image via search engines. Big, large lists with lots of choices scares off visitors. So, in fact, the search engines tend to be the most important element (by far). So, use keywords for your images, as they do work. As I already mentioned, your photos here are found by both Google and Bing - that is over 90% of all searches on the web. Your photos are highly visible, just not in the way you think it should be presented.<br>

The fact that you prefer a central gallery of all photos and that you search for images this way, does not mean that it is the best way, nor that all other people expect this (or prefer this). The fact that other sites work this way doesn't make it the best way either. So, your assumption that things are only theoretically visible, is really just your <em>opinion</em> on how it should work. Not a fact. With most sites, Search Engine Optimisation is far more important for most users - it's what drives volumes. (And yes, I visit plenty of other photo-oriented websites, so I have an idea how the rest works. I personally see zero value in a collection of all images from all users because it becomes a mess of different styles, with a lot of low quality work. I don't particularly like the approach on this site either, as it displays too small a subset, but I find it more reasonable than the "anything goes"-style.)<br>

That all said, it can be that this site does not work for you the way you like. Indeed things do not always move fast here, and that can make sharing photos and sharing feedback a bit a tedious affair. But, this site is a community first and foremost, and communities can only be as good as their members are willing to make them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>being immediately visible in a gallery by everyone who browse that gallery</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Donato, the moment you put your photo up for critique or rating, which is a fairly easy process (just click the ADMIN OPTIONS tab under your photo when you view it), it will appear in the gallery you choose when you make the submission. The galleries are divided into categories (for example nudes, landscapes, portraits, etc.)<br>

<br>

Here, for example, is the <a href="/photo-critique-forum/?category=Landscape&filtered_p=t">LANDSCAPE</a> gallery which your photo would be a part of if you submit it for rating or critique to the LANDSCAPE forum.</p>

<p>As a reminder, Photo.net is undergoing a site redesign and the new design may operate differently and have the type of galleries you're finding useful at other sites. PN does seem a bit different than many other sites, at least in some respects, and I don't mind that. It's often better for its uniqueness, though it does need to get its act together on many accounts.</p>

[longroute]

<p>Wouter,</p>

<p>“Donato, in my experience with managing websites (non photo related, but content-driven sites with serious amounts of traffic), a central list of images as you suggest as "the" entry point to find images, is not all that effective at all. Most people either search (for name, theme, category), or they land directly on a specific image via search engines.”</p>

<p>This happens when the images or other contents are too many, like in Flickr for instance. The had to stop posting all the images in the main gallery because simply they were receiving too many of them (several thousand per day if my memory is right).</p>

<p>But I wonder if Photo.net has the same problem?</p>

<p>Other sites like 500px (which has an amount of traffic probably close to that of Flickr) chose a better solution: a Fresh gallery where all the photos posted can be seen in chronological order , then an Upcoming gallery where can be found only those which reached a certain score, a Popular one, and finally Editor’s choice.</p>

<p>Flickrs and Ipernity instead chose to have the “groups system”, i.e. a quantity (no one knows how many of them are there) of small galleries created by the members where to post one’s photos.</p>

<p>In my experience this is too dispersive and time-consuming.</p>

<p>“So, your assumption that things are only theoretically visible, is really just your <em>opinion</em> on how it should work. Not a fact. With most sites, Search Engine Optimisation is far more important for most users.”</p>

<p>This is the key factor I think. Of course it’s an opinion of mine. We are all interpreting facts, don’t we?</p>

<p>We must talk of an important issue not tackled before now in this discussion: we give a different meaning to the word “visibility” according to one’s need and the kind of activity we want to do in a site like this one. If I’m a person looking for a photo to buy than the search engine is the best and fastest way. So a professional who registered here to sell his/her photos will rely on that and not to a main gallery which is completely useless to him/her.</p>

<p>But amateur photographers like myself have different needs and goals: to find other photographers who share the same taste or genres so to have a useful discussion about photography and possibly get a feedback about some of our works which we are not completely sure of. For this purpose a general main gallery (if it’s not too crowded) where photos are collected in chronological order is the best solution. One can browse quickly the last posted photos, (which are the most relevant for a comment), choose the ones one likes, and decide whether to comment them or not. The main need and desire of an amateur is to get comments about the newly posted photos.</p>

<p>Generally a good photographic site tries to satisfy both these needs. What all of you say in this discussion makes me understand that this site is meant mainly for the professional.</p>

<p>So to that respect this discussion has been extremely useful to me because it helped to clear this issue.</p>

<p>“That all said, it can be that this site does not work for you the way you like. Indeed things do not always move fast here, and that can make sharing photos and sharing feedback a bit a tedious affair. But, this site is a community first and foremost, and communities can only be as good as their members are willing to make them.”</p>

<p>You are perfectly right here Wouter and in starting this thread my intention was that of understanding what kind of community I could find here. Time will tell if it will work for me.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your contributions.</p>

[longroute]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>That is the info I was looking for! Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>So after all when I submit one of my photos for a critique it goes to a real visible gallery!</p>

<p>Oh my! This changes things considerably! Up to now I could see only one photo submitted for critique in the home page and could not understand where one could find all the others… well we must admit that this site structure is not very friendly! (:-).</p>

<p>I really hope they will do a good refurbishment work!</p>

<p>Thanks again for your help.</p>

[longroute]

<p>William,</p>

<p>“By the way - in future please refrain from instructing me as to what is appropriate or not appropriate for me to write. I was simply answering the main area of your concern with facts. I made no comment on the policies of this site. I do not make policy here, anyway.”</p>

<p>If you read the answer I gave to Wouter perhaps you can understand my point of view better.</p>

<p>Let’s put aside facts because if you think about it deeply we are all conditioned by our goals. Your answer was perfectly appropriate for what concerns the needs of professionals, but not for the amateurs. I think we both gave our visions for granted.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>If you read the answer I gave to Wouter perhaps you can understand my point of view better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Donato,</p>

<p>I understood your point of view from the outset. Part of your point of view was to discuss site policy, you said as much in your opening post, viz –<br /> <em><strong>"I’m new here and I’d like to understand better the functioning and the policy of this site."</strong></em></p>

<p>However, if you re-read my response, (30, 2015; 03:25 p.m.) it is quite clear that in my response I firstly addressed the <strong><em>'functioning of the site'</em></strong> and in the last two paragraphs gave some advice apropos mechanisms as to how you might develop more critiques and comments on your Photographs. That advice began with putting you photos up for critique, and others, (Wouter and Fred for example), have also suggested that you do exactly that. </p>

<p>Equally apparent in my response (30, 2015; 03:25 p.m.) is my lack of comment on site policy – I did not and I still don’t want to discuss that.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your answer was perfectly appropriate for what concerns the needs of professionals, but not for the amateurs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What should have been equally apparent was my request for you to refrain on critiquing my commentaries, (Sep 30, 2015; 06:30 p.m). </p>

<p>WW</p>

[longroute]

<p>William,</p>

<p>I would not call my statement a critique to your commentaries. I feel you have taken that too seriously. Please don't feel offended by my speech. Simply I made a series of requests and I felt that your reply didn't answer part of my requests. The problem is that you cannot separate the functioning from the policy, the functioning is planned according to the policy of who founded the site. You say you don't want to talk about the policy, is that a kind of taboo? Are you as a moderator not allowed to discuss that topic? If that is the case OK, but I cannot help feeling that my requests found a solid wall. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Donato,</p>

<p>I have not taken your comments as offensive, it is simply that you refuse my repeated requests for you to stop commenting on my commentary - here again:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that you cannot separate the functioning from the policy,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please do not tell me that I have a problem separating the functioning of the site from the policies of the site. Clearly I do not have any problem that regard. I have repeatedly told you that I simply have chosen not to discuss the policy of the site.</p>

<p>I also made the choice to inform you of the functioning of the site (the facts of how it works) and I gave you some advice and provided you with ideas as to how you might get more critique of your work - which was what also what you asked. If you found that advice useful (and you stated that you did) then that's good.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[G-P]

<p>Donato thank you for your feedback - I'm sending you an invite to photo.net 2.0. You will see how we are addressing your concerns.<br>

Be on the lookout for an invite!<br>

GP</p>