PN 2.0

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"get ideas to leave the early 90's and enter the 21 century" <strong><em>New Pnet user</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Yeah right, </strong>reminds me of replacing a <strong>classic,</strong> or famous disasters on trying to fix what <strong>isn't "broke":</strong> <br /> "Let's name it the <em>New Coke</em>" - "Com'on, the Porsche 911 is 17 years old" - "The Leica M5 will save the company" - "John, that DeLorean is going to sell like hotcakes" - "Betamax will beat VHS" - "Soon everybody will be wearing Google Glass" - "Wow, this Olestra tastes great, & I can eat as many as I like !" - and finally<br /> "Challenger: Go with throttle up"...</p>

[rafaelaviles]

<p>I like v1 much, much better than v2. I am glad to be back in v1. The new version was totally unusable on mobile devices - impossible to navigate, extremely difficult to return to the previous areas, and the image sizes were all wrong for the small screens. Regardless of device, the new version shows a lot less information per screen. This means that one is forced to scroll and jump screens a lot more just to see and do the things that are so easily accessible in v1.<br>

If v2 comes back, and it looks and feels the same as what we had to endure the last few days, I will cancel my subscription - even if they fix the things that just did not work.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Here's the problem IMO. Yes, the site needed a visual upgrade, and features that will attract viewers. Flickr had to do the same. What we didn't need was to remove the simplicity of operation. The simple list of forums at the top of the page. The ease of navigation. The full-aspect-ratio previews of images. The accessible menus that anyone can understand on the first day.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Glenn, the person that you used as an example of a recent user freely admitted that this site has "great info", which is why photo enthusiasts come here. Dressing it all up in a filigree package, with unneeded bells and whistles doesn't really help those enthusiasts. </p>

<p>Having all of those avatars in each thread title instead of the name of the thread originator is a waste of resources, IMO. Once in a thread, the text showing the poster's names lacks contrast, and for folks like me that have less than the greatest eyesight, it is a genuine PITA to decipher those names. One would not expect a lack of contrast for text on a photography website. </p>

<p>The size of the posted images has shrunk with V2.0, surely not a good thing for the viewers of those images. </p>

<p>JMO</p>

 

[bgelfand]

<p>First, thank you Glen and the tech team for all the hard work you put in on the site.</p>

<p>Yes, V2.0 was not ready for prime time (although it did raise my blood pressure and "stimulate" my brain <GRIN>).</p>

<p>Kudos to Glen for acknowledging the problem, keeping ego out of the equation, and moving swiftly to restore Version 1.0. I have seen professional, commercial projects driven by the team leader's ego and pushed to the detriment of the users.</p>

<p>Perhaps wider and longer beta testing would be appropriate before the next attempt.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Scott, I use Safari pretty much exclusively, and I've never experienced the behavior that you mentioned, in either version 1.0 or 2.0. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

I agree with Les Berkley. My little taste of the new design was brief and in hope that it would not be as confusing as I found it and I got lost quickly trying to find stuff. Took too long, in brief. Ease of navigation is my prime criteria, since I make a lot of internet stops each morning. Visual elegance is nice, desirable, love of the glossy and smart, but ease of navigation is prime. And some new wine in new bottles would be swell, meaning new content if we can get some on board. Even if it is to be paid content.. Good luck in achieving such goals and keeping the loyalists as well as hitting the mark with new participants. And competing for eyeballs.

[michaellinder]

<p>I did briefly beta test 2.0. My issue is that there's been a huge time lapse since the beta test and 2.0's rollout. What I may have found comfortable with the beta version several months ago, I felt during my few minutes on 2.0 that I was floundering.</p>

[Jack McRitchie]

First of all, it's great to actually be able to access my portfolio and post pictures again (at least I think so since it's 5

a.m. here in Osaka and I just woke up from the damndest nightmare.) They say disasters bring people together and this

one sure did. What I hope will emerge from the wreckage of 2.0 is a dialogue and discussion between moderators and

members about what could specifically be improved in a new version of pn. Perhaps a tutorial feature for new members

or a special forum site where new members could be welcomed and mentored by older members to help them find their

way around and learn how the site works. I know I would be willing to do that though the technical aspect kind of leaves

me behind. When I first joined almost eleven years ago, I was helped immensely by people I met here; it was like learning to swim and once they had taught me

how to paddle around, I could navigate the pool on my own. I certainly will do all I can to help others as much as I can and to create a real sense of

community here.

 

I still believe community is the true heart and soul of pn but it should not be an exclusive little club. I'm sure a lot of

members here have ideas how we can broaden our base and become more inclusive. Why don't we start a thread where

we can put down our thoughts, not only members but moderators as well. Let's hear about their vision, too, in specifics

(and before finding ourselves in a new sink or swim reality :-)) Let's hear everyone's ideas about how pn should look and

function. After all, that's what community is all about. Thanks again to the team for their work and for facing the reality

that the boat had too many holes this time around to be seaworthy and heading back to port. The shore never felt so good.

[michaellinder]

<p>"What I hope will emerge from the wreckage of 2.0 is a dialogue and discussion between moderators and members about what could specifically be improved in a new version of pn. <strong>Perhaps a tutorial feature</strong> for new members or a special forum site where new members could be welcomed and mentored by older members to help them find their way around and learn how the site works." (Emphasis added.)<br>

<br>

Exactly, Jack.</p>

[kathyb]

<p>Thank God the old website is back</p>

[ray .]

Agree with most of the above.

 

OT: I AM UNABLE TO START A THREAD… Tried this morning and a couple weeks ago and not sure why.

 

The page that pops up after I click 'confirm' instructs me to contact Bob Atkins via this forum. Could

someone tell me how to do that? If I click on his name it brings me to his website.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll take functionality over eye candy (2.0 site) any day of the week. --Andrew Rodney<br>

t's great to actually be able to access my portfolio and post pictures again. ---Jack McRitchie</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I fully agree with both of you, but I think (fear) that 2.0 is going to go forward, regardless of what some of us might prefer.</p>

<p>I do remember thinking long ago that PN was hard to navigate. I have to say, though, that it has its underlying logic, even though it takes a while to learn. The old site just "growed," but by and large it grew in what I would consider a rational way.</p>

<p>I personally still think that any necessary changes could be (could have been) effected incrementally. Instead, apparently, the decision was made to very nearly raze the site and start almost all over. Don't try that with the Department of Agriculture--or anything else that has been "cobbled together" over many, many years. A "rational comprehensive" approach to organizational change always sounds nice--at first. In reality, most good change occurs incrementally. That sounds "conservative," but at least the good is not thrown out with the bad.</p>

<p>This is/has been ultimately a corporate decision, not a decision made by "photographers for photographers."</p>

<p>As for the "thousands of messages" per day, well, that is (I presume) marketing hype. Life goes on. The only question is what we as individuals do now. Some will scatter. Some will maintain a nominal presence. PN as a corporate entity will probably live on, but PN as we know it is, if not dead, probably on its last legs. Even if we start over on the new site, we will miss what we lost--and I am pretty sure that we are going to lose it.</p>

<p>I hope that I am wrong.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ray .]

This site doesn't seem to have the traffic it did 8 or 10 or 12 years ago. Maybe it has something to do with

smartphones making it so easy for the masses to take pictures, I don't know. I guess the idea of a new format is to attract new people, but it does nothing for me.

 

Also IMO photonet lost something when the Off Topic forum was ended. Most people don't have a need for photography discussion constantly but that was a forum where people had something to say daily. I think one person in particular ruined it so it ended up being squashed. All types of topics (though not politics

for the most part) are chatted up on a Baseball forum I frequent, and it's amazing to me how that

community gets along so well and self governs itself with very little moderating.

[Jack McRitchie]

Lannie, I happened to come across the thread Promoting Photonet you started just days before the onset of the 2.0

debacle. I thought it was an excellent idea and definitely the direction in which we should be heading. I made a comment

there but I'm afraid that thread may have lost all momentum in the wake of the events of the last few days so I've taken

the liberty of copying it and re-posting it here. I invite other interested members to visit that thread while it's still up and

read the comments by other participants. Some really good thoughts. My comment follows:

 

Thanks for starting this discussion, it's pretty much what I suggested in today's thread (Saturday, Sept 4th here in

Japan) about the collapse of PN2.0. I had no idea this thread even existed and this is exactly what we need, a place

where people can contribute ideas on how to broaden our admittedly shrinking base. But it must be a collaborative,

communal effort involving both the membership and the moderators and one that is discussed and fully supported my

the majority of the pn community. We need to be informed - whether by e-mail, a special feature on the pn homepage or

a one-time announcement sent to all members when they log in to pn - of the current problems and the need for their

input and ideas. It's important to understand that we are in a struggle for our survival as a community and that we need

everyone's ideas on how we can attract new (and younger) members. Specifically, we need to hear from new members

about their experience here, how they feel about the site and how it can be improved. There are certain matters that

deserve priority consideration and the survival and growth of pn is among the most crucial. A free discussion of ideas is

always stimulative and can move things in surprising and rewarding directions. That's about it for now, off the top of my

head. Thanks again, Lannie, for getting the ball rolling (and before the miserable experience of 2,0 at that!)

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>it's amazing to me how that community gets along so well and self governs itself with very little moderating. --Ray .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Over-moderating kills. Period.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, Jack. All that I can say is that I still believe in the site--and I am willing to say so by linking to it whenever possible, and I encourage others to do likewise.</p>

<p>Jack, here is what I just posted to that same thread: "Jack, I think that we need a collegial, round-table organizational model in order to have a true community. Unfortunately, what we have had for some years is increasingly the top-down command-and-control model--that is, bureaucracy, the very antithesis of community."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>it's amazing to me how that community gets along so well and self governs itself with very little moderating. --Ray .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's the DPR forums for that silliness. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>There's the DPR forums for that silliness.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What is even sillier is trying to control everything from the top--the very antithesis of community.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Actually, if they need to modernize this forum, DPR is not a bad example to follow.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>DPR is not a bad example to follow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is certainly solvent--and vital.</p>

<p>PN of late has been. . . sanitized, sterile.</p>

<p>Dare I say "moribund" as well?</p>

<p>I do hope that, if PN 2.0 goes forward, which I am virtually certain that it will, it will go back to this site for the core of what it needs in order to be worth navigating and posting on. There is a core logical structure here upon which many other appendages grew--but Phil Greenspun was no dummy, and his basic core was as logical and functional as it gets.</p>

<p>The problem with PN 2.0 is that it did not seem to have a core. One was at sea from the get-go. It was, as Andrew Rodney said in feedback on the new version, a "disaster." I would say that, if it were a boat or ship, PN 2.0 was all superstructure and no hull. Nothing built like that is going to stay afloat.</p>

<p>I do think that it can be fixed, and that it will be fixed. I hope that enough of what we have here survives so that we might want to all climb aboard the next time.</p>

<p>What I saw was a ship adrift, without power or rudder.</p>

<p>Okay, I'll drop the nautical metaphors real soon now. Just remember to start with the keel and hull next time. . . .</p>

<p><br /> That is, build from HERE (PN 1). The basic structure is sound. Change the facade if you must. Don't hole the hull or forget that you need one.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Sanford]

<p>NameMedia is in the business of buying and selling domains and websites. Maybe 2.0 was an attempt to slap a coat of paint on 1.0 and make it more salable. To use a car analogy since we just finished Concours Week here, a good barn find is always worth more than a poor restoration. I think the reason I couldn't sign in under my old ID is that my password was only six characters long. This might be the time to make sure yours is seven at least before round two.</p>

[Andrew Gosden]

<p>As someone who mostly uses the forum side of Photo Net, I found the forum side of 2.0 confusing and hard to navigate. There was no convenient way to jump from one forum to another or easily switch threads within the same forum. It always seemed to want to funnel you back to the most recently active view.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>OMG! What a wonderful feeling. I'm back to my old familiar friend, PN 1.0.</p>

<p>Crap! Where's my avatar?! Just kidding.</p>

<p>Like I said in PN 2.0 how about some baby steps on modernizing the GUI design with something simple as changing the font style to something with a more Cooper Union/BauHaus New York sophistication design sense and increase the font size throughout the entire GUI. Keep the Photo.net logo the same of course.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It always seemed to want to funnel you back to the most recently active view. --Andrew Gosden</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ultimately, it shunted you back to the main menu, which was arranged by date. I would welcome an improvement upon that, but I do not see one at this moment.</p>

<p>I personally think that the forum <em>structure</em> was sound. The problem with the forums was a bullying attitude on the part of a few moderators, as far as I can tell. Those moderators who did not bully, such as Dainis and Cheung and Atkins, had very well-run threads. There were others as well who did a fine job. Then, of course, there is the management practice of banning one's customers and then wondering why they wanted to escape--and did!</p>

<p>Yes, NameMedia buys and sells websites, Sanford. A coat of paint is not going to fool potential buyers--not savvy ones, anyway. A refurbished PN could be quite marketable. The good ship PN2 with no integral hull won't get out of the marina slip.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>