PN 2.0

[GerrySiegel]

" We can help--with constructive suggestions." My memory runs dry. But I do recall that many suggestions have been offered. I can't locate the thread that Dick Arnold began which had 300 comments. Some may have been whines, some gripes, but some were earnest ideas. If the overhaul works from the experience of those who have some vested interest in the continuation of PN, this would, or at least COULD be useful. ( Couple things pop into mind.- How long for PN to hyperlink URLs beginning with https prefix or did they slip this in?. - If every other site, or most, offer headers on comments block easing user to choose the script or caps, or attachment preferences, that seems like a small step up the ladder with no penalty huh?. Maybe it was in V 2.0 I did not notice.. ) Make it easy in forums to reference a piece by some automatic script to show it is a reference piece... I use these couple wee manini thoughts as only examples to say heck let's make it easy/ easier/ fun even to use the web site, and for sure get at wiping out any small dis- satisfiers. Just sensible psychology in my little part of the world..

More importantly. If the goal is to attract new novice young and hot to trot paid subscribers, well, then a panel of more than one, a referenced above flyby -( and underwhelmed poor lad or lass- comment to Glenn,) is suggested. A focus group of intended audience perhaps back in Boston ?

 

Actually, this PN 2 business only covers cosmetics, sort of like a Sanford paintover, some good paint, some kitschy and a jumble... Substance, substance, of discussion, plus new and updated articles of timely fashion are what gets the keyboards clicking and it is not Q Is Photography an Art that stimulates the phagocytes er so to speak....

 

I think the fault lines have been drawn and spelled out if one looks back at user commengts. Those who remain remain despite the fault lines or cracks however you see it. And ahyes, I am pleased to be back to a format where I can find stuff. A relief.

[GerrySiegel]

I forgot a couple old ideas that were just husks in memory. How about opening up the size of images to be included with forum comments with server adjustment to fit a reasonable document size as in so many other venues. Add a few more minutes to time to make changes ( I coulda added this on tail of my previous. Oh well,)

[mhahn]

<p>"Additionally - <a href="/info/2013_survey_summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">surveys done in the past</a> with over 500 participants of mostly seasoned users were seeking a full site overhaul"<br>

<br>

Glenn, <br>

<br>

I'm a "seasoned veteran" who thought that the old site might at most use a little freshening up, and I criticized the beta site from the very start, but since the aborted roll-out, I wonder if you've received feedback from any of the "seasoned veterans" who you refer to above to tell you that they thought it was a step in the right direction. <br>

<br>

Based on the criticism in the help forum, it seems to me that once the new version of the site became a reality, more people took the point of view that I had from the beginning.<br>

<br>

I assume that what this is all about is making PhotoNet into a [more] successful business venture. Paradoxically, I think that in order to accomplish this, you may need to bring in someone with an interesting, offbeat, perhaps strong, sensibility about photography (i.e., not first and foremost a person with a business background) and let that person imbue the site with a little personality. <br>

<br>

Keep on trying, I guess, and thanks for bringing back the tried-and-true, if a little dowdy, Photonet 1, for at least a little while.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Martin Hahn</p>

[raghu_kuvempunagar]

<p>Firstly I am very glad that roll back to the good old V1 has happened. While V1 definitely looked outdated in its form and feel, it was functional. I'm for improvement and innovation but not all forums need to mimic Facebook and other social networks. PN offers something unique that none of the social networks offer and any effort to modernize PN must not undermine its essence. </p>

[donbright]

<p>Glad to have 1.0 to fall back on. I can see that the 2.0 version had well intent although simplicity is key. I mentioned this once perhaps in another thread, but can't find it as it seems to have disappeared, but to me whats paramount for a Photographic community site like P.NET is to provide technology to post concise images intended by the Photographer. Overly compressed small images that compromise image fidelity won't cut it. Photographers work hard and spend so much money on equipment to yield images with impact. We can't help it, it's genetic its what we have been doing since the inception of Photography and that will never stop. So it is uncomfortable to present images that are not of the best representation of the Photographers intent. So I hope this is in consideration. I have a hunch it is, that's why I mentioned it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm not quite sure how, but I don't recall many surveys,

let alone discussions about how to improve the site. Of

course, I was mostly in my happy works in the Nikon

forum without anything to complain about, and not

hugely motivated to take surveys (compared to solving

my problems and helping novices), so maybe I blanked

them. I doubt I'm alone there.

 

I'm sorry to hear there were so many complaints about

the site. I'd love to know what they were, specifically -

and elaboration on Anders' comment about "almost all

of us" thinking the site wasn't "fit for purpose". I'm very

happy that changes be made to make the site friendlier

for new visitors and to fix whatever other requests there

are. But I want to ensure that those of us relying on

existing site behaviour get to know about the

discussions and can make sure we're all happy.

 

For what it's worth, the threaded forum structure of

dpreview is the number one reason I rarely post there

(number two being the behaviour of some members who

would have been moderated here - and I agree with

Lannie that some moderation decisions here are harsher

than I would have been, so there's a line and a

judgement call). The pnet threads are simple, and you

have to work out what each post refers to if there are

mutual replies - but quoting makes that manageable.

Burying replies under other replies and presenting posts

out of order is, I believe, much worse. I've no objection to

offering a configurable interface, though - dpreview at

least has a "flat view", though I'm not too fond of even

this. I mention this just so we don't take dpr as the

archetype of good interfaces.

 

On the other hand, I regularly go to dpr for their news

articles, but barely look at the pnet home page. The

content on the pnet front page shows one article in July

and one in August as though the site was dead. Maybe

people come for the news and then rant about it? Here

the threads are rarely started by pnet articles, and

maybe the lack of motivating articles affects the forum

activity. Just a thought. Of course, hiring a good editorial

team isn't a quick fix...

 

Anyway, I hope Glenn is sleeping all of this off. I do

appreciate that the team did hard work under a lot of

pressure. I hope we can now move forward.

[mdc002]

<p>I hope we can move forward with staying with the V.1 format which has worked well for years! I never had much trouble (if any) figuring out how to use the V 1.0 site when I first subscribed. The notion that "newbies" were having a hard time navigating the site makes me wonder how they are able to "navigate" the computer centric digital cameras with their plethora of menus, and buttons!I found learning this site much easier than learning my cameras!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>the threaded forum structure of dpreview is the number one reason I rarely post there</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me it was the white-on-black - something that changed recently. When I go there, first thing I do is change to flat view - and then I cope with a format that barely covers 1/5 of my screen width with text. If anything, than the dpreview forum structure is a good example of what NOT to do. I, for one, don't find dpreview any easier or harder to navigate than PN V1.0.</p>

<p>As to what was presented in V2.0: avatars in the forum lists are totally unnecessary. Reverse ordering of the replies (as well as their default hiding) makes them very hard to follow. Having the "post a response" at the top of the thread only encourages posting without reading previous posts. And let to many assuming that "reply" was the way to create a new post, rather than a reply to a specific one.</p>

<p>At least on firefox, every post made within the last six minutes was labelled "Just now", in contrast to Chrome where the time frame appeared to be about 1 minute. The fact that "replies" weren't counted past "1" in new threads only added to the confusion. It's also questionable to count the "replies" which I assume are the sum of all the entries in that thread and not just those made using "reply".</p>

<p>Changing the order of the thread lists (unlike in the current version) made them hard to follow. And most certainly, each user needs to retain a list of posts made, in chronological order. The one presented in V2.0 was incomplete and not ordered at all. And in a bulky format that was totally unnecessary.</p>

<p>Saving a post took a long time, and it took a while before the post actually registered after that. In general, the bloating just causes everything to work more slowly than on the "antiquated" old site.</p>

<p>The editor in the forum had its shortcomings - most of all not being able to format text properly without using HTML tags. Not even paragraph breaks without them? Ridiculous. Right-clicking (for example to paste) needs to be enabled. Highlighting of text should appear the way it normally does, and highlighted text that's being copied and pasted needs to appear correctly (when pasting from V2.0 to V1.0 thread, the text was inserted black on black).</p>

<p>I generally liked the direction in which images were presented, except for the abysmal presentation of the galleries. And I felt that the presentations for portfolio and profile should be swapped. And I would prefer not to see the square crops return in an improved version. If they stay, then it would be preferable to have them only in those portions of the site that are seen by the owner of the images.</p>

<p>Some features of V2.0 seem to mimic 500px (like the trending) which is not necessarily a good thing. It certainly doesn't promote thoughtful critique on images, something I certainly would not go to 500px for.</p>

<p>Even though I became a PN member in 2001, I only became active here in 2006, almost exclusively for feedback on my images. I pretty much abandoned the site for flickr in 2007 (except for the forums), mostly because most of those I interacted with did the same and also prompted by what was perceived as a quite faulty rating system.</p>

<p>Flickr has gone through some major revisions over time as a result of which the image presentation now looks quite modern. But a lot of functionality has been lost and groups have had the rug pulled from under them by their latest redesign which is in beta now for over two years with no indication of it ending any time soon.</p>

<p>While at least the first overhaul on flickr seemed to have been part of a long term plan, almost all since gave the appearance of haphazardly making changes without having any underlying overall structure. Almost nothing introduced in the last few years works properly and a lot of functionality that was once intended to be implemented has now been discarded or never improved.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Flickr has gone through some major revisions over time as a result of which the image presentation now looks quite modern. But a lot of functionality has been lost and groups have had the rug pulled from under them by their latest redesign which is in beta now for over two years with no indication of it ending any time soon.<br>

While at least the first overhaul on flickr seemed to have been part of a long term plan, almost all since gave the appearance of haphazardly making changes without having any underlying overall structure. Almost nothing introduced in the last few years works properly and a lot of functionality that was once intended to be implemented has now been discarded or never improved.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Flickr has its strengths, but it can never replace this site--as it is currently constituted in terms of layout and structure.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ray .]

<i>"Yes, Flickr has its strengths, but it can never replace this site--as it is currently constituted in terms of

layout and structure."</i><p>

 

Of course they serve different functions.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>They serve different functions. -- Ray .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought that PN's mission was pretty well-defined. After a glance at 2.0, I am not so sure. Flickr's mission? I have <em>never</em> been sure. At first <em>I</em> used it for archiving, then for searches for photos made with certain lenses (through users groups named for those lenses). I guess that people can use if for a variety of things. I don't think that it lends itself particularly well to discussions.</p>

<p>There is a richness to Photo.net that some associate with clutter. I think that that is a mistake. It is complicated. If making it glitzty results in loss of features, then what will it have to offer over the long haul that makes it particularly distinctive?</p>

<p>If I were going to redo Photo.net, I would give the new creation a new name rather than have it try to piggyback on the Photo.net brand. The problem seems to be that the powers that be want to keep our contributions. I don't know what the legal ramifications of all that would be if our contributions were being offered on two co-existing websites--not that anyone has suggested doing such a thing, to my knowledge. That is my way of saying that, if my contributions are going to stay up, my preference would be for them to stay here on the more or less original PN. Of course, we signed almost all of our rights to our images away when we signed on, I presume. It sounds like problematic legal territory to me. I wonder if we will always retain the right to take down our images. If a site is massively redesigned, but we signed on to a site with a particular identity, then what are our remaining rights?</p>

<p>At what point has the legal criterion of "good faith" been violated? Would we have class action status? Would we collectively have any legal standing at all? I won't even get into false advertising and other dubious practices that might be raised--not that I am anticipating a court fight. Just thinking out loud. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[GerrySiegel]

" I assume that what this is all about is making PhotoNet into a [more] successful business venture. Paradoxically, I think that in order to accomplish this, you may need to bring in someone with an interesting, offbeat, perhaps strong, sensibility about photography (i.e., not first and foremost a person with a business background) and let that person imbue the site with a little personality. "

 

Martin h has grabbed hold of something. Maybe Glenn need a consigliere who does a lot of photography and also knows the internet. A Philip Greenspun alter ego is hard to come by, but maybe a nephew of Philip. I never felt the curse of heavy moderation but I can see it may be felt by some members. Laissez fair leads to chaos, so it is a real balance. And that takes a management hand. Who pays the bills and writes the checks I mean? Does said board care about the subject matter?

[Jack McRitchie]

Here I go again. This thread seems to have lots of general comments and a lack of specific things we can do as a community to re-energize photonet and expand our base. If you're interested, Leslie Reis has started a new thread on the Photo.net Site Help Forum for specific ideas on improving photonet and attracting new members. There are already some interesting suggestions listed Why don't you come on over and give us your thoughts.

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>Wednesday, 08/31/2016, will signal the temporary death of photo.net.<br>

<br>

At least the forums. The classic website has one of the best forums of all the internet, and the software is very good, if albeit slow. Better than the forums at flickr, for example. <br>

<br>

But the "version 2.0" forums were so bad, they had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. <br>

<br>

Please don't go "version 2.0" again. In any case, try "version 3.0" and remember: <strong>Form is never more worthy than substance. Photo net "version 1.0" has so much substance, that the form poses no problem.</strong></p>

[ray .]

Form follows function.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>On the "clutter" topic, I <i>have</i> found that the search tools used by pnet are somewhat lacking (at least for forum threads). Maybe that's an area for incremental improvement?</p>

[Sam_Ryan1664884851]

<p>Just wondering if anyone else has this problem since v1 returned. I can't connect on my iPhone any longer because its says "too many redirects."</p>

<p> </p>

[mhahn]

<p>Someone should start a list of names and contact info in case Photo Net goes belly up without warning. That roll-out did not seem to be indicative of a well-functioning business. </p>

<p>I tried to check out the Name Media website a little while ago, and the page was blank, whether I opened it in Chrome or Internet Explorer. Might that say something about the state of the business? Or are they just revamping their website too . . . ?</p>

<p>Perhaps I'm just being an alarmist.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I think that 2.0 was rolled out when it was on purpose--in order to get some serious feedback from us.</p>

<p>It will be back as 2.1 (or whatever). NameMedia has too much invested in giving the existing site at least a facelift, maybe more. The parent company, that is, is not likely to drop the effort at site renovation at this point.</p>

<p>I can only caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is, be sure that the best features of the existing site are preserved in whatever version comes next.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Lannie - it certainly got serious feedback, but I'd have hoped the same could have been achieved with much less ill will if someone had just asked. The problem with "please test this" followed by an unspecified development period is that even interested parties (and I was) have limited time to monitor for whether anything new is happening. I hope a bit more of a heads-up for those of us who aren't monitoring every thread in pnet would give more chances of testing.</p>

[jason_withers]

<p>I honestly prefer the look and ease of finding things with the current (older) version. It's simple and easy to use and best of all, current users know where to find information. I also think that new users can easily find content. I personally am more interested in the content that people type here and the discussions that ensue versus flashy pictures/new forum headings. The 2.0 release, like most any other website with enhancements, has bugs to work out; that's usually understood, but it was a bit of a shock to say the least. <br>

Change is not always for the better. </p>

<p> </p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Additionally - <a href="/info/2013_survey_summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">surveys done in the past</a> with over 500 participants of mostly seasoned users were seeking a full site overhaul: <br /> <em>Example of recent email from new user experiencing 1.0:</em> Sorry but this site is the worst most user unfriendly photo site I have run across. It's programmed like a school kids project on programming. Is ashamed because you a lot of great info on this site. Please visit any other photo site to get ideas to leave the early 90's and enter the 21 century.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the linked document:</p>

<p><em>'One common fear is that we’ll change the forums too much (many of you are worried that we’ll give you a black site with white writing like DPReview and we promise we won’t do that!). Our designer is keeping the forums very similar to how they appear now.'</em></p>

<p>I think, to put it mildly, the designer did not achieve this aim in the PN2 we saw a few days ago. The forums could hardly have been any more different. The white background was retained, but the text became a fashionable but lower contrast (and therefore harder to read) grey, which (at least in Firefox) appeared to be rendered in a rather ugly way. The flow of conversation was interrupted by thick coloured bars and (though I may be mistaken - it was gone too quickly to check!) there seemed to be some sort of unnecessary sub-threading. Everything was slow and buggy (I got sick of the 'busy' rotating aperture animation pretty quickly). Photo.net may look 15 years out of date but, if anything, the new version seemed more amateurish, presumably built with a modern toolkit but making little visual sense, with page elements juxtaposed in an apparently random and unappealing way, hardly what we would expect from a site devoted to a visual art. Though I like what we have now, I can understand the need to build something modern and maintainable. But for the discussion area I'd much rather see the admins switch to something like a lightly-themed vBulletin or XenForo forum than to what we saw with PN2. Lots of photography sites use these frameworks very successfully. Why re-invent the wheel poorly?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I also think that new users can easily find content.</blockquote>

<p>That's the thing that concerns me - <i>I</i> often can't find content even when I'm looking for something specific. Google's tendency to search for what it thinks you meant doesn't help. A better search system through the enormous thread history would really be welcome. We have repetitive threads because it's hard for a regular to find the previous discussion on the same issue, let alone a novice - and we may be scaring them off by asking them to try. Yes, the site tries to suggest similar threads, but unless there's a better search tool it's never going to do a very good job. It's not like there's a sticky FAQ.<br />

<br />

On that note, I've asked several times but I've never seen forum - or at least subforum-specific - rules written down (where most sites would have had a sticky thread). We often get people surprised that they can't link to another site, for example, but they usually only find this out by trying it. I really think a sticky thread saying things like "don't link to xxx", "we're friendly amateurs not a paid support service, be nice and it may take us a while", "please be more specific than 'my camera broke'", "please report back", etc. would surely help a bit.<br />

<br />

See, I don't think the existing forum system is perfect after all. :-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Huh. How did I miss the survey linked in Glenn's post the first time. Sorry for some of my repeated requests for more information about what people didn't like! I'll do some reading...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>...okay, interesting. Either several things don't bother me at all, or they've been improved since this survey, but it's good to know what people said. While not everything about pnet can be done by crowdsourcing, I think further discussion on how to resolve these issues incorporating long-term members would be valuable so as to ensure we get the best ideas of everyone and alienate the fewest members possible - unless this happened and I just didn't know abut it. I don't mind not getting my way if the masses disagree with me (except possibly on Brexit), but I'd at least like a chance for my voice to be heard. Brexit was a great example of getting people to vote against something they didn't like without a particularly clear description of what they were going to get instead. I worry that polls like this can easily go the same way - asking people what they don't like is best combined with a follow-up of "is this better?" (And now I'll stop drawing political comparisons in case I cross a line.)<br />

<br />

Maybe we need more granularity? A lot of people may be complaining about a very minor issue if they're mostly happy; that's not necessarily the same weight as a minority who are furious about something. And the people who hated something probably aren't hanging around to take a survey about it...</p>