PN

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>quite a few bits of feedback ... were submitted to management</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was the same on flickr and not very many have been listened to and actually let to change.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>feedback led to the (disastrous) rollout of 2.0</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seeing the result, I am frankly flabbergasted why it was considered ready for release. At the very least, the new version needs to preserve the functionality of the old and preferably improve upon it. At least for the new form of forums, that was not the case. The photo-aspect of V2.0 looked quite decent with a few things to be ironed out.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>It sounds as though the roll-out didn't prioritise the state of the forum software. Unsurprisingly, those of us who mostly lurk in the forum system blew up vocally when a broken alternative rolled out. I rarely look at any other parts of the site - and maybe that's something that a redesign would fix, or maybe that's why I didn't see improvements to balance out the forum situation. Of course, us forum types are quite suited to kicking up a fuss, because we're used to posting...</p>

[G-P]

<p>Hello All! We read each and every one of these threads and we sincerely appreciate the support and words of encouragement. Those that don't offer constructive criticism instead (how do I say this is nicely as possible....hmmm) offered their voice of frustration and that is understandable as well - so I sympathize with you - I get it, I do. Its clear we have a passionate community here which we all want to protect. <br>

Update soon on next steps and how we're proceeding from here. <br>

Thanks again!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Glenn - good to know you're still reading, and you're making good noises! (For your sake and ours, if there's a single thread or forum where we should be discussing things about the site revamp, please let us know. I'm trying to follow discussions too, but they're happening in several places. We've probably lost some people, so it might be worth messaging everyone?)<br />

<br />

I'll look forward to hearing back on your plans, and I hope we've shown that a lot of us are interested and invested in helping with the update process (even those who, like me, didn't do everything we could with the previous beta). And if you understandably spent the last couple of days with a hangover, I hope you now feel better. :-)</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>As a ten year PN member there's a lot of new names I'm seeing for the first time posting in these PN 2.0 discussions. That's gotta' be good.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Or we were all in our own little forum, Tim? :-)</p>

[Sam_Ryan1664884851]

<p>There is a difference between <strong>capturing value</strong> and <strong>creating value</strong>. PN captures value in membership dues and advertising income, but it creates value in how it interacts with its network of photographers (members). The enthusiasm and participation of the members makes the site better and, in turn, the improved experience broadens the membership and advertising opportunities (i.e., "network effect"). My point in saying this is that PN can't treat its members as an arm's length customer base. Management's role in building the PN business is to care take/protect the value of the site and its membership to the point where the members really need to be involved in major decisions. I know there was an attempt to gain input from the membership with PN 2.0 but it seems that effort fell short for a variety of reasons. I am reminded of the Chicago based company, Threadless. Their business model is based on a true network between artists on the one hand and T-Shirt customers on the other. They had an opportunity to go into a major retail chain and they left the decision to their artist/customer base because if they realized that if they excluded this community in this decision, they could destroy the network they had worked so hard to create and they understood that without the community, they didn't have a business. (I point you to a HBR case study if you are interested in this topic: <a href="http://course.shufe.edu.cn/jpkc/yjs/dzswsyjm/download/alcl/Threadless.pdf">http://course.shufe.edu.cn/jpkc/yjs/dzswsyjm/download/alcl/Threadless.pdf</a>). Food for thought.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I was invited to beta test the new website, but did not do so. I'm guess I am too lazy.</p>

<p>PN 2.0 had some good visual ideas, but there was way too much wasted "junk" space. To read the simplest contribution involved far too much scrolling. Also the nested responses are just a bad idea. It is also essential to be able to edit your words after posting, a function we lost in 2.0. The forum posting simplicity we have in the PNet is one of its great advantages (also used in Fred Miranda's site). The other problem was there was no help page and navigation around the site was badly handled, being not available, or simply not working.</p>

<p>I did like the way the viewer could sort portfolios by date, comments, likes etc, and I liked the way the comments overlaid the photos commented on when checking out someone's details.</p>

<p>The sizing of photos in their frames and all the 404 errors could be fixed quite easily, and I don't really understand why this was not done before release. Presumably the money is so tight that paid beta testers were not available. It is vital to make sure the links are active before releasing a new version (obvously!). I also cannot really understand why every time you see a shot you have to see a large panel inviting you to like or comment on it. This takes up (yet again) far to much real estate. Also I think portfolio images and forum postings should be entirely separate. Many of us post things in forums that we do not want in our portfolios.</p>