Jump to content

Closing photo.net or membership fee?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Photo.net as it is now isn't that bad, but some things bother me.

The owner @PapaTango some time ago sent me a message in which he offered me another photo website, https://fotofora.net!

Few days ago I sent a question using "Contact us" feature asking is photo.net going to be closed, no reply!

That made me decide to create a topic with the same question

I don't like the closing site option cause I'm a member since 2002 and have used to it, so I would suggest introducing membership fee of $30 annually as it was before.

In order to motivate members to contribute that way I would suggest increasing of the limitations of free membership & benefits of payed fee membership 

That would be all from me, do not hesitate to contribute to this discussion my fellow members

Thank you all in advance

PDE

 

Edited by Pierre Dumas Esquire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I appreciate the promotion, I DO NOT own PhotoNet, nor hold any sort of special position or financial stake in it.  

Now, I have been here for 20+ years and have seen pretty much everything there has been to see in that time.  When things stalled last October, several of us stepped forward in January and completed a lot of things administrative that had been left undone--by my documented count about 340 of them...  Lacking any communication or support from the real corporate owners, I decided at the end of February to devote my efforts to creating a new community.  Not a replacement for PN, nor connected in any way except for embracing the ideals that PN had at its zenith around 2010.  It is just a place for kindred creative photographers from all places, something I have thought about for many years.

If everything here worked as expected, I would have no problems with a subscription fee.  All of us who have the title "PhotoNet Pro" bear that due to our previous active subscriptions.  I have been subscribing for well over a decade--until doing so became just an artifact and memory.

Things do work here, but not always right or in functional completeness.  Perhaps someday there will be investment and momentum again.  As to the site longevity, who knows?  It would be really nice if they ever told us anything.  In the meantime, I will keep on sharing with my friends here, and keeping things running smoothly "somewhere over the rainbow..."

  • Yes! 1

 "I See Things..."

The FotoFora Community Experience [Link]

A new community for creative photographers.  Come join us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But just what would we get, change, or improve with our monthly tithing? The cost isn't the issue, it would be the polling, planning and agreement by the owners to implement any changes.

I can't think of one example where 'money', taken alone, improved anything.

  • Like 1
Film Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ericphelps said:

I can't think of one example where 'money', taken alone, improved anything.

Yes, Ericphelphs,

I agree, but since we now have the information that PapaTango isn't the owner and the owner(s) don't take any action I don't know what to say!

Thank you for your contribution

PDE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pierre Dumas Esquire said:

I don't know what to say!

Probably not much more on this topic.

***

There seems some confusion.

It's not the first time you've incorrectly named a specific Member here as the 'owner' of Photo.net. It is probably best to check your facts, before publishing.

Also, it has been mentioned many times that the "Contact Us" feature has rendered no response for a long time, if you have missed that before - it should be clear to you now.

Additionally, it has been mentioned many times that the subscription function has been inoperative for some time; so that's now clear also.

Over the past several months you have posted repetitious calls for fundamental changes to the PN Site and the response above is not the first time PapaTango (and others) have responded in detail to you.

All the responses underscore the following simple one sentence fact and for clarity here it is again - Photo.net is what it is, at this time there is neither apparent nor implied changes ahead.

 

***

 

22 hours ago, Pierre Dumas Esquire said:

Yes, I had that title too and I want it back

Regarding the above most recent complaint concerning the title "Photo.Net Pro"

The site is moderated by volunteers and it seems a tad presumptuous to assume that whimsical changes of mind will be addressed by volunteers who might otherwise be spending their valuable time deleting spam and keeping the site running as smoothly as possible - or performing their actual job and attending to their family duties.

In a previous conversation you started, you specifically requested that "PhotoNet Pro" be removed from your name, and it was.

Your quote - "The stupid addition pro to the names of those who have paid the "rent" I'm not professional and don't need that "promotion" "

WW   

REF: LINK

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, William Michael said:

you specifically requested that "PhotoNet Pro" be removed from your name

I didn't mention such thing, I only criticized the tittle because it didn't fit the reality and I pointed me as an example! Now, in the light of the new circumstances I want it back, is it so difficult to understand?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, William Michael said:

It's not the first time you've incorrectly named a specific Member here as the 'owner' of Photo.net.

I meant "the owner of Fotofora, speaking of PapaTango and I maybe have addressed as the owner of photo.net Mr @mjensen in some occasion because I thought so! Not a crime!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, William Michael said:

The site is moderated by volunteers and it seems a tad presumptuous to assume that whimsical changes of mind will be addressed by volunteers who might otherwise be spending their valuable time deleting spam and keeping the site running as smoothly as possible - or performing their actual job and attending to their family duties.

Sorry, I didn't know that the moderators were volunteers and I think it doesn't take much time to read a message or to answer a question! However, I apologize for that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pierre Dumas Esquire said:

I meant "the owner of Fotofora, speaking of PapaTango and I maybe have addressed as the owner of photo.net Mr @mjensen in some occasion because I thought so! Not a crime!

Which doesn't mean that I didn't think PpaTango was the owner of photo.net too!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...