The Future of Photo.net

[tommyfilmist]

well I have been on many forums, photographic, video game, ship modelling.

 

Any time a moderator appears with a one or two day old user profile, and starts asking about whats wrong with the site, I have learned that is just net speak for "we want to get rid of those who dont like us"

 

There are MANY problems with the site, the layout, the functionality of it.

 

The first off is the mandatory photo uploads.. did not like that at all.

 

you have content on the HOME PAGE that is actually 5 years OUT OF DATE... seriously its 2022, do we need to read a "whats new in digital cameras for 2018" advertisement?

 

But if actually serious, send me a message and ill discuss the major problems.

 

 

Your getting to be like APUG is now, except i havent noticed any political bait posts.

[mjensen]

Oh boy. Thank you, everyone. I had expected to go over everyone's post and reply individually, but this is far more feedback than I expected! Overall, all of the "pain points" seem to revolve around two different topics.

1. Technical issues

2. Community interactions

 

For the technical issues part, those are some of the things that we'll likely try to clean up first. Without a viable login/email/cancelation system, there really is no site.

 

Give me a few days to compile and summarize the feedback and I'll create another post where we can discuss to make sure my understanding is accurate.

[michaellinder]

Aurthur's comment reflects the sort of nastiness that a few have told me keeps them away from PN - understandably. It's thoughtless & humorless at best.

It is ironic for this thread discussing how to move ahead for a better PN.

 

If As a personal attack I crossed a line with this comment, ... please remove it.

 

Inoneeye, just a bit curious. For how long have you been a member of PN?

[arthur_gottschalk]

I think I was misunderstood. I was talking about people who post extremely nasty comments and private messages on photo.net, I assume those people are "mentally ill" and not some of the most wonderful people you know. Indeed, I have received unbelievably nasty messages, including an astonishing response to an innocuous question about a camera bag that I posted. I'd rather not repeat this comment, but I don't think it belongs on this site. That's why I think this person, (and others like him) should be banned,

[michaellinder]

Might this be one of those instances where, instead of trying to improve and enhance the existing site (which I am sure many would suggest needs doing), a completely new approach is needed and thoroughly tested before (hopefully seamlessly) being rolled out to replace the current version ? I am sure many members would be only too happy to provide input (as indeed, many have already) as to how they would like to see the site altered for the future - maybe they could be persuaded to act as Beta testers for the new Photo.net ? Having said this, the current version seems to work well enough for my (admittedly limited) needs.

 

Tony, I respect your idea of a "completely new approach." Please, though, remember that the first version of PN2 was almost immediately trashed, presumably due to too many serious bugs.

[Tony Parsons]

I must say I preferred PN the way it was before the revamp. Much more action back then, and more specific information.<SNIP>

 

Inappropriate, inflammatory and downright insulting and insolent suggestion removed from quote.

 

Why assume that derogatory, and indeed inflammatory, comments are posted by 'the mentally ill' ? As Sam says, many people labelled with this description are such wonderful, joyful and happy people that the very suggestion makes my blood boil - and I do not agree with the 'justification' posted to 'explain' the comment. Unless @a_g has medical evidence concerning the author of the post to which he refers, he has no right to describe them thus. People can and do post 'extremely nasty comments and private messages' on forums such as this. It is a part of life - deal with it. Put the originator of the post on your ignore list, report him/her to the Moderation team, but don't assume that anyone who ruffles your feathers has any kind of mental or emotional issue.

 

[Tony Parsons]

Tony, I respect your idea of a "completely new approach." Please, though, remember that the first version of PN2 was almost immediately trashed, presumably due to too many serious bugs.

 

Michael,

 

Thank you for this. I don't believe that I was a participant in the previous version of PN, so what we have now is all I have ever known. Not saying it's perfect, but I have nothing with which to compare it, and, as said, it currently suits me.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[inoneeye]

ML... 20+ yrs.

[Niels - NHSN]

One function that actually works on photo.net is Ignore Member. It works wonders on removing the trap of engaging with toxicity. I think I only have two on my list, but it made a huge difference in my enjoyment of the site.

[arthur_gottschalk]

Amazing that I've got everybody upset. That was not my intention. No doubt I should not have used the term "mentally ill." I was just trying to say that those that post particularly heinous comments or personal attacks should be removed from the forum. I've been here for over 20 years and I don't think anyone can find comments from me that would fit that description. I do apologize to those I've offended.

[AJG]

Amazing that I've got everybody upset. That was not my intention. No doubt I should not have used the term "mentally ill." I was just trying to say that those that post particularly heinous comments or personal attacks should be removed from the forum. I've been here for over 20 years and I don't think anyone can find comments from me that would fit that description. I do apologize to those I've offended.

I can think of a couple of people who sometimes reply with less than perfect manners who nonetheless supply very useful information to some questions. I strongly doubt they fit any clinical definition of "mentally ill", however that may be defined, so where do you draw the line? I guess I would be inclined to tolerate some ill tempered responses if it leads to better information, although I try not to contribute to the inflammatory reply problem myself.

[eugen_mezei]

The revamp a few years ago was a disaster. Now another "improver" comes along.

 

I remember when I discovered "Travels with Samantha". Must have been 1993 or 94. I sat for weeks in the university computer lab reading on it. I lived the process of many years the forums filled up with high value information and questions to the point receiving usefull help.

For me the site and the forums were ok as they were back then, at least I could not discover any benefit in the "improvements".

 

The problem with websites as a business is, that the employees need to justify their salary. The site running perfectly is not in their interest. So they come up with invented problems they "have" to fix.

[michaellinder]

Amazing that I've got everybody upset. That was not my intention. No doubt I should not have used the term "mentally ill." I was just trying to say that those that post particularly heinous comments or personal attacks should be removed from the forum. I've been here for over 20 years and I don't think anyone can find comments from me that would fit that description. I do apologize to those I've offended.

 

Arthur, since the death of the Off Topic forum, I suspect the moderators may not be warning those who traffic in personal attacks as zealously as in the past.

[Sandy Vongries]

All anyone need do is message me. There are a couple of "Pas de Deux" that as a rule I don't bother with.

[tommyfilmist]

I think I was misunderstood. I was talking about people who post extremely nasty comments and private messages on photo.net, I assume those people are "mentally ill" and not some of the most wonderful people you know. Indeed, I have received unbelievably nasty messages, including an astonishing response to an innocuous question about a camera bag that I posted. I'd rather not repeat this comment, but I don't think it belongs on this site. That's why I think this person, (and others like him) should be banned,

 

whats your idea of nasty comments?

 

there are photo forums that if you PUBLICALLY disagree with a moderator, you will have a deleted profile.

 

there is a photo forum where the moderators post extremely inflamatory threads about topics based on race and politics, and delete accounts of members who disagree with what the moderator said. To the point if you say "caffenol is unreliable and inconsistent, just use a commercial developer to learn how to develop film", the moderators who LIKE caffenol, even one whom helped write the original caffenol cook book, is allowed to delete your account.

 

One of those two forums, the moderators use sock puppet accounts to start arguments with members they do not like, so that they can report that member they dislike, and then log in as their moderator self and ban that person from said website.

 

On that forum the moderators have the ability to do key word searches on private messages sent through the website message system, and then read the whole message and delete profiles of those who complain about things happening on the site.

[tommyfilmist]

Amazing that I've got everybody upset. That was not my intention. No doubt I should not have used the term "mentally ill." I was just trying to say that those that post particularly heinous comments or personal attacks should be removed from the forum. I've been here for over 20 years and I don't think anyone can find comments from me that would fit that description. I do apologize to those I've offended.

 

most sites would consider referring to people who disagree with you as being "mentally ill" qualifies as an uncalled for personal attack.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

well I have been on many forums, photographic, video game, ship modelling.

 

Any time a moderator appears with a one or two day old user profile, and starts asking about whats wrong with the site, I have learned that is just net speak for "we want to get rid of those who dont like us"

 

There are MANY problems with the site, the layout, the functionality of it.

 

The first off is the mandatory photo uploads.. did not like that at all.

 

you have content on the HOME PAGE that is actually 5 years OUT OF DATE... seriously its 2022, do we need to read a "whats new in digital cameras for 2018" advertisement?

 

But if actually serious, send me a message and ill discuss the major problems.

 

 

Your getting to be like APUG is now, except i havent noticed any political bait posts.

 

Really? I've not seen people cancelled because the moderators "want to get rid of those who don't like us". it hasn't been the experience here. I've seen people axed for a time for being incredibly abusive, but it was rare and the attacks were seen by all and that was years ago, haven't seen it happen in a long long time.

 

The last time a major site revamp was proposed it was discussed with many members, the beta was made available and after feedback was adopted. Unfortunately it turned out to be a bit of a bollux.

 

But yes, the content of the front page hasn't changed forever and it leaves the impression that certain aspects of the site are just not attended to by operators. The moderators here, have always for the greatly most part been awesome, I think they donate their time and get little thanks, so. . .thank you. I do think that the general operator abandonment of the site has frustrated many moderators and have led to them just leaving out of frustration.

I noted the op was listed as an administrator, not a moderator. I believe there is a big difference.

[AlanKlein]

Inappropriate, inflammatory and downright insulting and insolent suggestion removed from quote.

 

Why assume that derogatory, and indeed inflammatory, comments are posted by 'the mentally ill' ? As Sam says, many people labelled with this description are such wonderful, joyful and happy people that the very suggestion makes my blood boil - and I do not agree with the 'justification' posted to 'explain' the comment. Unless @a_g has medical evidence concerning the author of the post to which he refers, he has no right to describe them thus. People can and do post 'extremely nasty comments and private messages' on forums such as this. It is a part of life - deal with it. Put the originator of the post on your ignore list, report him/her to the Moderation team, but don't assume that anyone who ruffles your feathers has any kind of mental or emotional issue.

Words and expressions have different meanings. Mentally ill has a colloquial definition and use and is not related to people who have medical issues. If I called someone "sick" because they acted like an ass, I don;t mean it in a medical way. I'm not making "fun" of sick people. I'm making fun of people who act like an ass, that there might be something wrong with them the way they act.

 

I don't think mentally ill used in calling someone acting like an ass is any different. It has nothing to do with people who actually suffer from mental issues.

 

This constant narrowing of the rich English language definitions into specific uses to make things political just creates conflicts when none were intended.

[tommyfilmist]

Words and expressions have different meanings. Mentally ill has a colloquial definition and use and is not related to people who have medical issues. If I called someone "sick" because they acted like an ass, I don;t mean it in a medical way. I'm not making "fun" of sick people. I'm making fun of people who act like an ass, that there might be something wrong with them the way they act.

 

I don't think mentally ill used in calling someone acting like an ass is any different. It has nothing to do with people who actually suffer from mental issues.

 

This constant narrowing of the rich English language definitions into specific uses to make things political just creates conflicts when none were intended.

 

Just like the politicalization of photography

[Robin Smith]

Got to say, I knew what Arthur meant when he said "mentally ill". He could have been attacking those who are truly mentally ill, but knowing his posts, and in the context of whole discussion, I understood that was the least likely interpretation.

[inoneeye]

Apparently the gui is not the only upgrade needed.

Time to grow up people!

Edited March 22, 2022 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

Got to say, I knew what Arthur meant when he said "mentally ill". He could have been attacking those who are truly mentally ill, but knowing his posts, and in the context of whole discussion, I understood that was the least likely interpretation.

To the extent I can read minds, I was pretty sure I knew what Arthur meant, too. That's not the point. I didn't think he was attacking people with mental illness. I thought he was using those words in a denigrating way to underscore how he felt about nasty people on the Internet.

 

This is really pretty simple. It's what we used to do on the junior high school playground. We're not there any more. As a simple matter of respect, let's reserve nasty for nastiness and not associate it, innocently or otherwise, with mental illness.

 

We've adapted our language plenty over the years. We all got used to Russia instead of The Soviet Union, we all got used to mouse being something other than a rodent, we all got used to gay. Think of the hardship most people with mental illness already deal with. Then consider how much it takes from you to use the words appropriately. It shouldn't be too much of a burden.

 

Arthur has apologized. It's a shame that this is being dragged on now by others.

[argh]

Thread has kinda wandered off course. We'd love to keep the focus on what you want to see in the next iteration of the site. We've put up a page to describe where we are and what we're thinking. A couple points: 1. PN operates at a substantial loss. It would be nice if it could pay for itself, but this isn't an explicit goal or expectation of our future work. 2. Historically, the site seemed like it was unstaffed because... it was. PN had totally failed, and was acquired as an asset sale, not as an operating business. It's not easy reverse-engineering someone else's site. 3. CL had a choice of how to deploy our limited engineering resources. We chose to invest our time into stabilizing our primary business, which is what led to us being acquired, which is the only reason we're able to have this conversation at all! 4. CL students are really passionate and keep setting up their own communities off-platform. This is cool, but idea in acquiring PN was to leverage the existing PN community as a place where CL photography students would come to hang out and chat, since we weren't providing that. 5. A substantial number of CL students either already have photography businesses that they want to grow, or aspire to start photography businesses, and/or do a bunch of freelancing. This is why the Fiverr connection is pretty cool. Not everybody wants to learn new techniques, not everybody wants to do gigs, and not everyone wants to be a pro. Just like not everyone cares about photographing landscapes, weddings, birds, architecture, or portraits. But the venn diagram of all of these overlaps more than not. We want to enable and empower these conversations. What should we do?

[samstevens]

We've put up a page to describe where we are and what we're thinking.

Thanks. Where is it? Link?

[inoneeye]

Sam, the page i referred to is by clicking on the new CLxfiverr banner...? Edited March 22, 2022 by inoneeye