Photo.net 2.0

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Glenn,</p>

<p>Thanks for reverting back. The Forum functionality with Version 1 is great. All most folks wanted was the ability post larger photos, but I would not trade the Forum set up as is for larger photos. </p>

<p>Other problems with the 2.0 Forum, There seemed to be no way to edit a post on V.2. Even typos on the first round were underlined but no way to right click and get correct spelling so we were left with spell it perfect the first time or open another window/tab and Google the word, before submitting. Sorry, I make typos, I see them and try to fix them, I am a fairly good speller, but some words I have to look up. I need to be able to easily edit a post.</p>

<p>I also didn't like how the number of past posts seemed more limited, search didn't work. And I like the look of V.1.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents. I do appreciate the hard work you are doing and sorry this turned into a fiasco on the first round. I hope you aren't feeling too beat up. Hang in there. </p>

<p> </p>

[gungajim]

<p><br />Is the rating system toast or is it appropriate to suggest changes?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

There are clearly people here who liked some features of

2.0. I'd like to hear more about what they liked, and what

features they would like to have. I find the change to the

forum system made it essentially unusable - but the fora

are where I spent most of my time, and maybe I'd have

had a different opinion if I did more using of the rest of

pnet. Understanding what people actually wanted would

make me feel much better about this process.

Personally I couldn't care less about things like choice of

font (and the banner image was a huge negative to me),

but "not caring" means if it'll make others happy to

change it, I don't mind. I just doubt that level of

cosmetics is going to attract new users. But I could be

wrong - I never understood why manufacturers sell

coloured cameras either.

[vrankin]

<p>I frankly liked the fresh look of 2.0, and found features I liked quite easily navigated. It was more visually appealing. I thought the presentation of my images looked better, and I liked the tools around them for reactions/responses from the community. I liked the simplifying of the forum experience. I believe younger potential users might feel the 2.0 look and functionality more friendly. Longtime and aging users might benefit from being more open to features that could bring some fresh blood to photo.net. I hope you won't give up on it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Okay, thanks Howard. Can you tell us more about which features/sections you were using and what you liked (or don't like about the current ones)?<br />

<br />

In addition to the bugs and the (catastrophic, unfortunately) spam filtering causing deleted threads, my issues with the forum system started with the hiding of responses below others so there was no overall (let alone chronological) view of all posts in a thread, went through lack of ability to edit a post, continued with the mangled formatting (I at least worked out how to add a line break, but ended up with all my posts centred on mobile), tripped over the lack of times on responses so you couldn't tell in what order things had been said, stubbed a toe on the invisible poster names (initially just hard to read, eventually actually missing), weren't helped by bugs such as the "one response" thing, wandered by a few other issues that I don't currently remember, and ended up with pointlessness like the huge banner image which wasted battery life on mobile by being animated according to phone tilt angle (which I assume someone thought was "cool"). Oh, and that's not mentioning the fact that nothing worked on my browser with javascript disabled (where I normally have about forty threads, several of which are active, open), that the metadata for images in the mobile view was much larger than the images themselves, and that the image upload mechanism insisted on putting things in a gallery. Other than the amount that was missing, I certainly didn't find the forum interface "simplified" - but I <i>would</i> like to know why you did.<br />

<br />

I'm not averse to change (okay, I'm 42, these things are relative), and there are things (especially site search) that could stand improvement. At some point we'll just disagree on aesthetics (or in my case possible in a preference for function over form), but I believe there's a middle ground. Of course, I'm optimistically hoping that the members can be in on this discussion and that managerial pressure won't result in an autocratic decision without our input...</p>

[Former P.N Member]

<blockquote>

<p>...I'm optimistically hoping that the members can be in on this discussion and that managerial pressure won't result in an autocratic decision without our input... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't hold your breath on that. </p>

<p> P.N is a 'for profit' business entity (versus the academic exercise/hobby that it started out as) and the bottom line will have precedence over all else. Members preferences will be considered in the context of the perceived impact on profitability and will be accepted/rejected accordingly. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, just recognize it as being the driving force when it comes to decision making.</p>

<p>If management believes (using whatever criteria they choose) that having a site designed for use on hand held, touch screen devices or a 'form over function' approach will have a positive impact on profits then that is the decision that will be made and time will tell if it's the correct decision.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Absolutely, Dick. I appreciate that management need to do what they believe is right for the business, and I'm happy for pnet to turn a profit (so that it can keep running) and attract new people (which makes it more valuable). Still, I believe the biggest resource of the site is its members, both for their contributions (and I've already suggested that a solution to the lack of editorial content might be to ask members to offer opinion pieces - even if it's for free) and because us members are paying, a bit. I'm happy for management to believe that a mobile-friendly site is important - but 2.0 was even more unusable on mobile than on desktop, in my experience.<br />

<br />

So let's evolve, but what I hope is that the knowledge of the community (no few of which have some expertise in web design, computing in general and user interface design), their understanding of user requirements for the site (based on, you know, using the current one) and their facility for testing proposed updates be used properly. I'm very happy for the owners of pnet to make lots of money (even out of my contributions); we should be pulling in the same direction, and I hope we can. Striking out in a way that alienates the current user base will, I'm sure, do more harm to the site than any possible good it could achieve - so I hope that doesn't happen (again).</p>

[morophaenixmau]

<p>I agree with Rolph M. Often the "better" is worse of the "well!" The bases of the "old" Photo.net are perfect, and they allow us all the possibilities of which we have need. The 2.0 is not intuitive, it doesn't offer all the possibilities of the "old" and gives many problems of connection, of speed and of interaction among consumers. In Italy we say: "Who leaves the old street for the new one, he knows what leaves but not that that finds. Ahahah!!!</p>

[morophaenixmau]

<p>I agree with Rolph M. Often the "better" is worse of the "well!" The bases of the "old" Photo.net are perfect, and they allow us all the possibilities of which we have need. The 2.0 is not intuitive, it doesn't offer all the possibilities of the "old" and gives many problems of connection, of speed and of interaction among consumers. In Italy we say: "Who leaves the old street for the new one, he knows what leaves but not that that finds. Ahahah!!!</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yep, a business model applies, but I'm sure when the analytics showed the huge drop in amount of usage, and especially time of usage, i when the the rollout occurred must have rattled some cages in management.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>The tiny photos thing on V1 is very 1998.</p>

[gungajim]

<p>The new site site should be designed so that only forum text, not images, are visible on mobile devices. The gods did not intend for art to be viewed and critiqued on phones. Stone Ager. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder what the age bracket of that one person is that's still posting in PN 2.0? How does one find the age of a PN member so we can tell we're attracting the newer, younger generation who prefer PN 2.0?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>News flash, newer younger generations don't do forums </p>

[morophaenixmau]

<p>I agree with Rolph M, sometimes the "old" is better than the "new"!</p>

[krpradu]

<p>For the moment I am glad to be back on 1.0 that really works very fast and gives me what I want to have from lot of options.In 2.0 that I like how is presented as design as we discussed what bother me very much is the lack of options in way to manage portfolio and search.Was very slow,a page open in 10-15 sec. (compare with 1.0 when I open a page in less than 2sec.)The lack of large view is other major point we want to have again,also why in portfolio the photos are crop and not show in thumbnail in whole size?<br>

Reading comments here I agree what <strong>Gregory and Verena Sava</strong> say,and I support the new things and what you want to do but to be a step forward not back.I am really curious to have and work with new 2.0 improved with our wishes and to have a new beginning in September.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Andrew, I ran into some of the same snafus that you listed. No arguments there. What I liked most in 2.0 was the larger thumbnails in my gallery, buttons for easy liking and commenting on images, simplified forums and navigating that reminded me more of my Flickr experience. I wasn't complaining about 1.0, even though I thought it had gotten pretty stodgy, and it seemed at the times I visited, that the same old troops were the only ones posting much in the forums I frequent: Nikon, Casual Conversations, Philosophy of Photography. I've made the comment about 2.0 attracting "younger" users because of its emphasis on esthetics over in-depth functioning. Sites like Instagram and Pinterest are much more streamlined. Granted, Flickr is probably losing the battle, but I like it, and 2.0 reminded me a little of it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hopefully I can post here now (I discovered the hard way that there's a three post per day limit in this forum...)<br />

<br/ >

Howard: Thanks for clarifying. I hope we can find a way to update the site to improve aesthetics without actually reducing functionality.<br />

<br />

Jim: I'm obliged to mention that phones tend to have higher resolution screens than monitors (partly because they're updated more often), and often also have better colours and viewing angles. Larger modern phones aren't much smaller than a 6x4 print, and bigger than most transparencies - and there's a VR headset if you want a "loupe". Yes, I'd use a tablet or high-end laptop if I wanted to see an image at its best, but if we're aiming for reasonable bandwidth and fast downloads, I feel I can see the average in-thread image just fine on my phone (which isn't cutting edge any more). Besides, several of my recent Nikon Wednesday posts needed 1:1 pixels at the 700-pixel limit because even a 500mm lens was wanting for reach! I'm keen that the site work well on a phone - even if only in "request desktop view" mode - because I use it a lot from there. I didn't feel the 2.0 attempt achieved that at all, but something else could. (And while I don't mind it existing, I'm just not going to install a custom app to do what my web browser can do already if there's any possible alternative.)<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: I work for but don't represent Samsung's mobile division, and I may be biased towards the higher-end of the phone market in terms of what devices can do and how easy they are to use. But a lot of internet access is casual and on mobile devices these days, so I really wouldn't want to rule it out.</p>

[Pierre Dumas]

<p>I want my money back since the 2 lacks the elementary qualities of the good old site! That because I know whatever of my suggestion (which would be 1000 and more) wouldn't be accepted! So, I give up Photo.net which was my main occupation in the last 14 years and must be satisfied with a simple refund of $25 which is a lot of money for me to be thrown away!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Pierre... we're currently back on "the good old site". I hope we can arrange that the qualities you want will remain (at least if they're compatible with the needs of most of the members!) and we won't be transitioning until there's a lot more agreement than we saw with the 2.0 roll-out. I'd be happy to see your 1000 suggestions - it at least means you're interested in improving the site, and I'd rather see lots of ideas and pick between them. (To be clear, I'm nothing to do with the dev team, but I absolutely want to be in this discussion). Let's see if they're accepted before we assume they won't be? I'm sure not everything is mutually compatible, not everything is easy to do, and not everything will be popular with all members, but that doesn't mean ideas shouldn't be presented. I hope you'll hang around to help with this process before resorting to asking for refunds - I'm sure it'll at least take long enough for your current membership to expire!</p>

[Pierre Dumas]

<p>Andrew,<br>

I just want all the features of the current site to be on the 2! I want hidden folders by my choice, all the stuff shown on my member page as it is now, all transparent as it is now, rating system as it was before (or it is now at least, because I've paid my subscription for that feature too), wide, user friendly design, not large pictures instead of thumbnails (if someone wants to see the picture he might click on the thumb nail, large view picture to be able to see the details and estimate the technical quality, not suffocating dark colors of everything, ranking of photographers and photos by their ratings received, by number of comments, by views, by everything as it is now, when I hit "enter" in a text, that enter to be registered and executed...long is the list and I can't say other than "as it is now" in short!</p>

[Pierre Dumas]

<p><strong>I must remind you:</strong> I want my money back cause I won't get lots of features present when I paid last subscription! <br>

It is not a matter of democracy and voting referring you remark about ...the most of the members...!<br>

<strong>First:</strong> If we all agreed to buy a superb jet and then the majority "voted" to replace it with an old used Fiat 500...what then?<br>

<strong>Second:</strong> I don't see here the majority of the members, Photo.net claims that there are 800.000 registered members<br>

<strong>Conclusion</strong>: I have the <strong>moral right to get my money back</strong>, although I and all members don't have any formal rights, just to mention that the administration has the right to delete anyone's account without telling him the reason and actually with no reason at all! As three or four my best rated pictures were deleted by the administration with no word about the reason why!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks for clarifying, Pierre. I'm just assuming that "everything as it is now" isn't suiting at least some people, and any time you change functionality for the better for someone it gets worse for someone else. So knowing what of the features you actually use and will notice changing is useful - I'm sure there are lots of obscure niggles about how the site works that only a subset of people use, or features that a lot of people use but don't really care about changing. (For what it's worth, I don't really care if the font changes slightly, and I doubt many others do even though everyone looks at the site. I use the HTML editor all the time, but I suspect most others don't.)<br />

<br />

While I feel your frustration:<br />

How long have you paid your subscription for? We're currently running with, I presume, the same functionality that you had when you last subscribed. Whatever state 2.0 is in when and if we switch to it, I doubt we'll be ready to switch over in a hurry. If the issue is that the site doesn't work as you paid for within the duration of your paid membership, I'm just suggesting that your membership may run out before the site updates. If you're worried about the sword of Damocles from the new site, it's much simpler for you and everyone else if you just don't resubscribe until you're happy with the direction (hopefully) rather than trying to get compensation. Not that it's any of my business, just trying to act as mediator, and I'm not fond of situations where the only people making money are lawyers.<br />

<br />

I'm absolutely sure that many members registered in order to ask a question or two and then disappeared without trace. That's unfortunate, but not exactly rare for online fora. I'd be astonished if the paid membership got close to that.<br />

<br />

I certainly share your concerns, but I don't think you need to feel you're not getting the service you paid for <i>until</i> (and if) the new site rolls out - though making it clear that you'll complain or won't resubscribe while the new site is not to your satisfaction is not a bad thing as a motivation to improve it. I'm hesitant about my own resubscription too. Are you doing something commercial with the site (referring clients to it) for example, or are you "just" worried about your membership fee? (The picture deletion is another matter - I hope you can get to the bottom of it, unless it was another case of bugs in the recent system rather than action by the administrators.)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Why can't we take the subscription bitching off-thread?</p>

[Pierre Dumas]

<p><strong>In short</strong><br>

I paid the last subscription on <strong>August the 8th</strong> (the annual subscription is <strong>9% of my pension</strong>)<br>

An <strong>administrator</strong> told me that my pictures were deleted by some administrator (some bug deleted only my four highest rated photos?!, ha) <br>

Commercial is only my <strong>unsuccessful</strong> trying to sell my photos through this subscribed membership <br>

<strong>I'm eager for corrections on the site</strong>, but it isn't a matter of design, when I say "as it is now" I mean the possibilities, the possibility of customization, the good overview etc for that's what I'm supposedly paying for!<br>

<strong><a href="/info/terms-of-use">Read the rules here</a></strong> and estimate is it true that the administration can delete any account by its free will!<br>

And last, I'm subscribing only as a <strong>member of the community due to contribute to its well being,</strong> I have right as a non subscriber to upload many more of my present number of photos (based on my activity, as a commentator, 80.000 comments!)</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Pierre - I think we're all hoping that any updates to the site will retain the capabilities we need. I just hope you can stay to help influence it. I appreciate the magnitude of your contribution (as a fellow member), and that your subscription will take some time to run out. Will 2.0 be rolled out within the next year? Well, let's see - getting it to a state that people will accept feels, to me, as though it'll take a good while. All I'm suggesting is that I'd hold on for now (while it's definitely not worse) and try to influence where we're going - for all our sakes. If a 2.0 you're unhappy with is foisted on you before your membership expires, I certainly understand your desire to get refunded - though from a legal perspective I think you'd be relying on the good will of site management for that; trying to get a refund before that point seems premature to me, but I appreciate we're not talking about my money.<br />

<br />

I completely believe that administrators have the authority to delete any account or image - while I may not agree with every decision, we kind of have to trust them, given their track records and volunteer status. Still, I hope a polite request to a likely culprit might at least meet with an explanation - the moderators are largely reasonable people in my experience, at least given the pressure they're under.<br />

<br />

Apologies for any misinformation about the theory of a bug. I only mentioned it because a number of threads disappeared due to a misconfigured spam filter during the 2.0 roll-out, and there were many accusations that threads containing disagreement were preferentially being deleted. (They were, just not by the moderators - if a spam filter is triggered by writing in capitals, it'll pick up every time someone STARTS SHOUTING, which is exactly what happened in those threads.) If your missing photos didn't disappear during the 2.0 issues, I hope you can find out what happened, if only for your satisfaction.</p>