why so few members?

[mg]

I agree with Kenny Brian's post dated apr 12, 2004; 12:40 a.m.

<p>

May I finally suggest on top of that that all people who fall in the categories of people who are NOT expected to pay get their own (different) "wild-card" icon.

<p>

Perhaps that will put to rest the unbearable attitude of those who sneak in the bags of our indian friends to see what lens they own.

<p>

I finally suggest to all those who can, to pay an extra 1 USD for the purpose of sending some folks to the slums in Calcutta for a holiday: after all, with "only" 25 USD, you can have a 3 months (!) "holiday" in these slums, and perhaps, if you ever come back, you would understand that there are more important things in life than rating 200 pictures a day on photo.net.

[kenern_petersen]

Kenney,

 

You are mistaken. The $25 is not mentioned in FAQ, but it is in the sign up procedure screens.

 

Anyone who doesn�t use photo.net long enough to discover it�s a fee-based service, is not the person subscription is targeted to. However, I do agree that the fees should be mentioned in the FAQ.

 

I don�t think the frequency of my use compels payment under the current guidelines, so I�m not at all bothered by heavy-handed remarks about honor or labels like freeloader.

 

Greetings

[kenny_brian]

My sincere apologies for anyone offended by my misstating the facts concerning the sign up screens in my previous post. PUT THE POLICY IN THE FAQ.

[mottershead]

Kenny, I accept your apology concerning the sign-up screens. But how about your selective quotation of me above? You quoted my sentence above about many people being dishonorable and rationalizing visiting the site frequently without subscribing. I stand by this comment, but I also gave as a possible reason that they are procrastinators or that they don't know that they are expected to subscribe. You quoted my statement that people think the site is free because we don't demand payment up front and that our protests to the contrary fall of deaf ears, taking offense at the deaf ears part, but ignoring the basic idea that most people think the site is free. As for the deaf ears (i.e. refusal to take our word for it that the site is not free), the evidence for that is in this thread.

 

But the critics are right who say that we have not been sufficiently clear that the site is not free. I already said the same in this thread. We have always been very "soft" about asking frequent users to pay for subscriptions, and before I started running the site two years ago, the words "subscription" and "donation" were used interchangably, so that people think that the site is free and that subscribe means "donate" -- that is, optional. The result is that if we are the slightest bit insistent that frequent users should pay, it is perceived as "heavy-handed".

 

The soft approach is not only confusing -- it doesn't work. Out of thousands of new registered users per month, only about 200 subscribe, and it would be only 150 per month if it weren't for the Leica Forum and Sandy's subscription drives. We have only 3000 subscribers out of 300,000 registered users, which is pathetic.

 

You will observe us being a lot more clear in the future, whether this is perceived as "heavy-handed" or not.

[root]

I don't think being more direct about 'contributions' is going to make much of a difference in the subscription rate. I'm also sceptical that the changes we have been promised in the gallery will tripple the number of subscriptions.

 

The critical issue as I see it is that there is a conflict between benefits to the user sufficient to induce him/her to subscribe and number of page hits that generate advertiser income. We're attempting to maximize page hits by making the site attractive to new users initially - encouraging multiple image uploads, inviting ratings sessions, allowing forum postings - yet all these activities are in large part a detriment to the other users. There are far too many images uploaded per day. The rates cause disproportionately more discontent than benefit to the users or the database. The comments are, for the most part, oft repeated questions that require attention from long time members or staff.

 

I don't see how you can increase contributions from the current 15% level unless you're willing to accept, even encourage, a decline in the number of hits and a reduction in advertising.

 

Basically, what's killing this site is the expectation that someone who just bought their first camera and has just found this site can participate at the same level as a longtime photographer and member, and that their contributions have the same value. The distinction between the two can be approximated by limiting the level of input severely by nonmember new users of the site.

[mottershead]

Carl, there might be less emphasis on traffic and attracting new users, if the existing users would subscribe. If more of the user base were subscribers, then it would be a lot easier to increase the priveleges of subscribers and take them away from non-subscribers. As long as 75% of the budget comes from advertising, it is hard for us to privelege subscribers as much as we might want.

[adi1]

I think Marcs idea regarding the "wild card" is pretty good;(maybe a maximum of 90 days of free membership would not be such a bad idea - the artistic level will increase anyway and the ones who stay & pay are in the majority of cases more intrested in what goes on here)<p>I know very well that this issue, regarding the number of subscription, has been over discussed, but:<p> 25$ for a one year membership is not much (0,068 USD/day). The ones who cannot afford 25$ are very few IMHO. The problem is that the majority of those not paying are also not willing to pay in the future. The policy of the site could be to blame because, as said in other comments, the non-members think of PN as of a totaly free site. Why pay if one has anyway the same facilities and options in comparison to a member. (IMO the upload limit is not enough). As long as the advantages of beeing a member will not be clearly differentiated from the benefits of a non-subscrieber nothing will change! We can wait in vain for the member-numbers to grow if we apply only to the common sense of people.

[gerald_widen]

It has been discussed before but placing stricter limits on non subscribers makes sense. If the limits for placing photos was 50 and limits to posting on forums was say 200 new users would think those numbers very reasonable and would take a while to reach. As they used more and more of the site and get to appreciate the wealth of information and opportunities to participate those limits would ,as we know ,be achieved quite quickly. These limitations could be stated quite clearly when people sign up so there would be no bad feelings later.<p> For those non-subscribers already using the site new limits can be placed similiar to new users. They would be allowed (no matter how many postings they already have)an additional 200 posts and 50 additional photos, unles that or a lesser number brings them to over 100 photos where they would have to subscribe anyway. The policy PN is not a fee site is not all that clear, especially to those who have been using the site for awhile. It seems to be creating some bad feelings.

[bobatkins]

Some of the confusion no doubt comes from the fact that photo.net WAS a totally free site and there wasn't even an option of subscribing until a few years ago - and there was no advertising either. It started out as a subsidised research project hosted out of MIT on equipment donated by some major companies. Since revenue wasn't needed to keep the site running, it could be totally free.

 

However a few years ago (I don't remember exactly when), all that stopped. The site moved out of MIT, had to buy it's own hardware and pay for all its bandwidth. It also went from being a small "hobby" or research site which could by run by one person in his spare time, to a site that required full time administration and (very poorly) paid staff.

 

So that's why things have changed and why there is some confusion, especially among those who have been around since the early "totally free" days.

 

There are lots of sites out there that can serve as good models for a free/paid site combination. They have a free memebership with fairly restricted access to many advanced site features, but some amount of limited access to most areas - then they have a paid membership which has full access to all the site. I assume photo.net will eventually adopt a similar model. Right now you get about 95% of the site for free even if you're not a subscriber, but I think that probably has to change.

[adi1]

I think we would all benefit from this change, so I hope it will come into operation soon! cheers

[mottershead]

The site was spun off by Philip Greenspun to some of his MIT friends in 1999. By that time, the site was out of MIT and running in the Ars Digita data center on AD computers with AD paying for the bandwidth. Sometime after that, photo.net purchased the hardware the site was running on from AD, although AD continued to host it, and probably paid for the bandwidth.

 

I'm not sure of the timing either, but I think it was in 2001 when photo.net was booted out of the data center where AD had its equipment because AD had stopped paying its colo bills. Rajeev Surati has a story about a harrowing weekend where, having been tipped off, he got the hardware out of the data center hours before it was switched off by the colo company along with all the AD equipment. In about one day he moved it all to our current location, getting everything running again single-handedly, with some "hand-holding" from Mark Silis, one of the main sys admins at MIT.

 

With AD out of the picture, and the expenses suddenly much higher, the period from Fall 2001 to Spring 2002 was pretty dire and photo.net came close to folding. By then, except for Rajeev and his wife Lisa, everybody who had been involved in the 1999 group had moved on to other things. I got involved in April 2002, and since then Rajeev and I have increased the advertising and become slowly firmer (some would say strident) about members supporting the site financially by subscribing. Bob Atkins, who had always been one of the biggest volunteers for the site, also started to take on a more formal role in February last year.

 

The wolf is no longer at the door, but nobody is spending a lot of time sitting around the pool drinking margueritas either.

[root]

"Carl, there might be less emphasis on traffic and attracting new users, if the existing users would subscribe. If more of the user base were subscribers, then it would be a lot easier to increase the priveleges of subscribers and take them away from non-subscribers. As long as 75% of the budget comes from advertising, it is hard for us to privelege subscribers as much as we might want."

 

What does it take to get more users to pay up? I think we need to find out what benefits members and prospective members really want. We need to work from both directions, placing greater limits on new users while showing them that they will get access to more of what they want if they join.

 

I have to say that many of us who think that some policies which offer certain unfair benefits to both members and nonmembers - and of course I'm talking about the whole TRP/ratings/comments game - have been marginalized by you even though we firmly believe that the site would be more attractive to a large group of serious users who would be willing to become members and also renew. Their input would improve the quality of the site and make it more attractive to still more serious users. Part of the issue is deciding who your target audience is - both viewers and contributers.

 

I have seen a lot of folks leaving or at least reducing their input to the point where I doubt that those who are listed as members now will renew. They are also cutting back on the services they offer to others which is part of the attrction of the site. I know my case is weakened by a few whose conditional laundry list of necessary improvements is way too long, but they're only a small portion of the group who has expressed disappointment in the volume of quality feedback in the gallery. Cut back the traffic of new users, but show them that they'll get the feedback they want when they subscribe.

[lionface375]

Hi Brian M. Thanks for the feedback but I just want it to be cleared

that I did not mean for you and Bob A., for lucking of compassionism.

For me, a discussion or a forum of essential issues are good as long as it's being constructively healthy and most of all in a harmonious

manner. But we are out of line when some of us sort of into bashing mode or just being plain "mean". I could not tolerate of such manner and I for one has to react in a defensive mode too.

 

From what I digested from all the feedbacks some were being sick of

it. I also sense that those who were considering to be a member have

change their minds, I guess due to the unfriendly words or the ratings they did because someone like me dared to put my 2 cents in the "mens world". Correct me, If my assesment is wrong but I could not helped how I felt...But that's okay too for me but not to the

extreme though...

 

All the good points you and Bob and others have stated, I'm with you

100% but not those undesirable words, well you might say it's a free

country and you have the right to say what you felt but it is not

humane to do so. That's the only concerned I had to these flow of

words so far. Thanks for reading and for the feedbacks. " PEACE BE WITH ALL OF US"...

[robert holmes]

I joined and paid up about a month ago,.... BUT I must say that this is by far the SLOWEST SITE ON THE WEB, that I visit....What's up?...Server trouble?...Get more servers!...This has become a bad advertisement for M.I.T.....A couple of kids in a California garage can get up a site like Google, which I would willingly pay $100 a year for....I have a really good ADSL connection, but working with photonet is like going back to a 28.8 modem twelve years ago....Non subscribers should perhaps be allowed 10 downloads, not 100..I won't be renewing my membership next year unless the site technology improves...That's a shame because there are some very fascinating images and ideas here.