PN

[BelaMolnar]

<p><strong>Thank you to restore the one logical and easy to navigate photo site.</strong><br>

<strong>Please never instal the PN-2 again.</strong><br>

<strong>_BLM</strong></p>

[jim_service]

<p>Normal navigation through PN-2 was all screwed up, at least on my computer. I'm glad PN-1 is back. I had looked for discussion about the change and could find nothing.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>They probably receiver so much of the negative comments and some are quiet nasty, they just shamefully removed all of them.<br>

One more time. Please do not rep-lease this PN ever. If you like to improve it, improve the existing one. I don't care of those fleshy colors all over it. Simpler is better. I like to see peoples images quickly, without any, <strong> "Find the Eastern eggs in the garden"</strong> style.<br>

<strong>NO PN-2</strong> As long as the existing PN running, I'm a paid member. Then, if not, I going to disappear from here.</p>

 

MODERATOR NOTE: no threads were deleted

[Didier Lamy]

<p>"Simpler is better" agreed. There are enough photos posted by members, no need to add sunsets etc.. Nothing wrong with a unified black/grey color, why not just replace the present ~Russian blue with dark grey? The star under the photos was a good idea.<br>

Many thanks to PN's staff efforts to improve things, and to go back to the old version.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>ditto!<br>

The experiment failed miserably.</p>

[lynnthomas]

Well.....as a long time member it is sad to see how few photos are on the site for critique. This site has lost quite a bit.

 

I don't often get on here due to work/home issues and certainly not as much as years ago but I do still value what's offered. This site taught me so much in the beginning and will still come to find good advice and insight when I can.

 

I know the folks are working to fix the problems I hope they will be able to come up with something that will encourage photographers to come back.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Drag-and-drop was a nice addition, but navigation was a PITA. I'm not sure if multi-level responses are useful, although most other photo websites (e.g., DPReview) have them. PN2 does seem to scale well to mobile devices, which is a big plus. There were issues reported concerning portfolios and such, but I never got that far.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>Glad to see this edition of the photonet software back!!</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Dear Edward. Did you tried to do that; <em>"Drag-and-drop was a nice addition,"</em> because I try it and didn't work, any one way I try it. It was unable to add an image to my portfolio, and many others didn't worked.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I found it difficult to navigate as well. I love the Phillip Greenspun style of simplicity. It's not beautiful but all you need are a few tweaks to make it look a little more elegant (sort of like Medium) than a full-on revamp. I think paragraph width can be a little shorter. But honestly I like the site as-is. You can get to anywhere from anywhere via the drop-down menus.<br /><br />This site is one of the few online which are old-school and useful at the same time. Flickr already exists. Let's keep PN pure.</p>

<p>I don't upload much to my gallery because Flash is used for bulk uploading. No thanks.</p>

<p>I recall one of PN's poorer choices, which thankfully they reversed: putting the poster's name below the post. That was just illogical as illogical can be for user interface design. When we sent letters via snail mail, the recipient knew who the sender was before reading the letter. This logic does not require improvement.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>PN-2 was like a Hollywood plastic surgery gone wrong. I was so confounded by that mess that I vowed never return to Photo.net again, though I am a lifetime member. I just happened to drop by today for no good reason and what a pleasant surprise. There was our dear old Photo.net as it should be. And the Canon FD Forum was not swallowed up by the Canon EOS forum! Please, leave well enough alone. Photo.net is just fine.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>And here we are back in our comfortable pond. I was a s shocked as any, and commented out of frustration, which I regret. Once I figured things out a bit on PN 2, a couple of the features were brilliant. The drag and drop worked well -- I was able to add both downsized and full sized images to my portfolio very easily and then quickly load them for critique. I was able to add comments, and view comments, though a time or two comments went somewhere other than intended. Certainly the quality of the images displayed, at least on my monitor, was far superior. Simply going to My Profile presented further tools and opportunities. I believe a list of "Feature Enhancements" and some "How To" suggestions would have speeded the learning curve and reduced many of the negative experiences. Organisms and organizations change and evolve or die. Most don't like change because it impacts short term comfort and disturbs the established order, but change is inevitable. I do hope PN 2 is tried again, and am more than willing to help where I can to make a future launch successful. All kudos for a bold attempt that could as easily have had everyone praising the wonderful new version. I have no plans of leaving PN.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>What is wrong with PN-1 that they feel they need to change. The new system may have better things but I surely don't wish to learn to navigate it.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I couldn't even Sign In on PN 2.0 so I could not test any of the new functions.</p>

<p>However, if Sandy is right about the various features, and some of them were good and functioning, why not try to introduce such new features one by one as PN 1.1, 1.2 (or PN 3.1, 3.2...) updated versions for us to appreciate and comment on ?</p>

<p>I think we are many who are open for change and improvements as previous questionnaires have shown.</p>

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>People,<br>

Something you should remember, Glen invited every to beta test PN2. <br>

From the sounds of it, the few who did just looked around, commenting on the visuals instead of kicking the tires. Many of the issues were reported over a year ago. Unfortunately, they were ... unheeded. I would suggest the if Glen invites all to test the new site they do so.</p>

[Jack McRitchie]

Specifics. I was roundly critical (perhaps among the most vociferous, raising the flag of rebellion aloft) about V2.0 but it's time to examine the wreckage for useable parts. Sandy may have been right about the image quality being better. I remember when I visited the beta version months ago I made a comparison with the one we were using at the time and came to that conclusion myself so maybe that's something we can agree on. The thumbnails were ok but most people didn't like the fact that they chopped off part of the image to fit the square format. Personally I don't think we need any real change in the thumbnails we have now which seem quite serviceable. The drag and drop would be a good improvement if it could be made to work smoothly. It didn't work for me nor did the regular method, so I was unable to upload anything at all. My experience wasn't isolated. When changes are implemented as radically as these were, they have to work smoothly from the get-go Eliminating so many useful features (list of recently commented on pictures; follow up on your comments; spell check; paragraphing; written list of all your folders so you don't have to scroll down a million miles (I have 135 separate folders, all but 5 or 6 hidden so you can imagine the fun I would have finding one particular folder with the new system); list of photographers I follow; and on and on. I'm sure you could add your own list of features that were "streamlined" out of existence.

 

Anyway, that's the past. The tendency now is to sink back into complacency and think "problem solved!". The reality is that we have to expand our base, especially with younger members, or slowly become a ship of doddering old fools (and I can dodder with the best of them). We need to come up with specific ways to increase our membership. As is often the case, we wait passively for leadership to impose their corporate solutions while we go about our business. This site is nothing but its membership, a community of people who share a common interest. If we want photonet to survive in an increasingly competitive environment something has to change. Management gave it a shot and it didn't work. So now what? The ship is still listing and rudderless. We better all start bailing and paddling and improvising new sails or we'll sink like a stone

 

This is purportedly a group of creative individuals so what are your specific solutions for breathing new life into photonet and attracting new members to our community. And bothers and sisters, if you don't think it's important to be active, to create and be part of a vibrant and creative community, then there really is no reason (at least in my mind) to stick around. Don't fool yourself, we will all get what we deserve in any case.

[Jack McRitchie]

Rick, I visited the beta version and as I remember it, aside from the visuals there were few tires to kick, nothing like what they finally came up with. It was up for a while maybe a year ago or more and then it sank from sight. From what I saw, I was actually looking forward to it and thought the picture quality an improvement.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't even Sign In on PN 2.0</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When the site went active, I could not sign in with my usual username (email address) and password and had to request a password change first. Why, I don't know. After I set the new password, I was in.</p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Jack,<br>

I participated in beta testing and went off world to the beta site at various times to become familiar with it. There were always, to me at least, plenty of tires to kick. I kicked them hard in beta and submitted numerous detailed comments. I won't itemize them here. I started threads, posted images, tried working with the portfolio which only seemed to fight back, submitted to critique, as well as doing all the looking around I could. I also returned numerous times when Glenn invited the community to check it out. Some things were different, but my comments were still valid. I've been posting a weekly thread in the Nature forum for over 3 years and on Aug 1 I invited folks to the beta site for a <a href="/nature-photography-forum/00e4qk">shadow thread</a>. Those who participated got a taste of the challenges in 2.0. The difficulties that were experienced by the community at large were present on Aug 1. </p>

<p>I've been doing something here to try and make it a good place to be. I tried to share my experience in 2.0 and answer questions that I could. Most folks that I had exchanges with were great. Some of my posts were deleted while angry comments were paraded across forms, and one directed at me to "get your sorry rear back here" remained. Quite frankly, I never left, and I even tried to assist that person, without thanks. I certainly didn't deserve the caustic comment. I don't see that I have anything to be apologetic for and my rear isn't sorry. No one should have to tolerate being addressed like anywhere, let alone in a public forum.</p>

<p>I'm a firm believer in being part of the solution and in acting to benefit the greater good. I used to be a member of the Louisiana Native Plant Society. Their motto was "do small things well". I think it's a good motto. I think a lot of people here are trying to make this a good place with interesting contributions across forums. I see a lot of help given to newcomers who do not express any gratitude. I've seen newcomers complain about how hard it is to navigate this site when they clearly are able to post words and images in threads and portfolios. When asked what they need specific help with, there is no reply. There are other newcomers who are the opposite, and are a pleasure to be around. The site is attracting individuals who will, I hope, continue to make sound contributions, which will be to the benefit of us all.</p>

<p> </p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>I'm a software engineer with over 10 years experience in web application development. </p>

<p>The old (Classic) photo.net is a slow website but the forums are great in functionality and appearance. And moreover, the huge catalog of great knowledge accumulated over the last 15+ years. It worked very well.</p>

<p>I beg, i plead to the Photo.net owners to please NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER<br>

NEVER</p>

<p>NEVER return to that horrible "version 2.0" website. At least not the forums. It was terrible, the worst forum i have ever used in my entire life. </p>

<p> </p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>PS: Also,</p>

<p>THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, many thanks to returning to the original website.</p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>PS: </p>

<p>And version 1.0 is one of the best photo websites on the entire internet.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Again, I have to state that I'm guilty - I had a look at the beta when first invited, but not finding much there at the time I didn't check back with any regularity (if at all). I appreciate that I'd have been more help if I had, but we have limited time and helping photo novices with the few problems I could actually solve seemed more helpful. Laura, I'm grateful that you stuck with it, no matter the result - and I appreciate Glenn's efforts, if not the outcome.<br />

<br />

I was stuck mostly in the Nikon forum, and therefore if there were repeated invitations or status updates on the beta, I wasn't seeing them. I'm sure that's partly my fault, but I would suggest that a site update affects all of us, and before anything new gets rolled out some warning via administrator messages that we should be paying attention to the beta (particularly when the developers feel a significant update has happened) would have helped; I hope we might get that next time. But first I hope we can have a better discussion about what changes are actually going to be made - clearly a lot of us didn't like much in 2.0, and I don't think I'm alone in having little idea of what the redesign was even trying to achieve. If I know the motivation, I'm going to be far happier to help, and far more willing to tolerate any limitations in the result.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But first I hope we can have a better discussion about what changes are actually going to be made - clearly a lot of us didn't like much in 2.0, and I don't think I'm alone in having little idea of what the redesign was even trying to achieve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're not alone.</p>

<p>These are the only two threads I could find informing of the status of V2.0; both initiated by members:<br /> Shortly after the invitations went out: http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00dTC9<br /> April/May 2016: http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00drmt<br /> I recall seeing the first (and posted in it); can't recall seeing the second. But the timing coincides with the last Newsletter I received (May 2016) - wish does mention V2.0 and provides the information on how to access it. Something I admittedly must have missed ;-)</p>

<p>A couple of years back I involved myself in providing feedback to changes being made to flickr at the time. It all amounted to a colossal waste of time, an experience I have no intention of repeating again. IMHO, beta testing is something that irons out bugs when the overall design is 98%+ implemented and functional; it should no longer require major changes in the design. And since nothing was made available as to what might still be implemented once the basic V2.0 was active, a lot of potential feedback may have involved items that were scheduled but that the user was not aware of.</p>

<p>As an example: the number of replies not updating in the forum lists to me is a bug. The fact that right-clicking in a thread to open a menu that allows copying and pasting or the absence of a means to have paragraph breaks without using HTML tags is an error in design that I, as a user, have no idea whether or not it is even correctable within the framework of the forum software (why would it be absent if it was?).</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Dieter - I am aware that quite a few bits of feedback on 2.0's beta version were submitted to management. Sad to say, management never provided any information thereafter regarding how, if at all, such feedback led to the (disastrous) rollout of 2.0.</p>