Under the Veterans Memorial Bridge, Cleveland at Night

Hi Walter, sorry to see you on a boycott. As I'm a fan of night photography, this picture is a real treat and hope to see more.

 

I can understand your irritation with recent events, and have come close to quitting the site (in the past) myself, but finally decided that the good people I interact with are of far greater importance than the small percentage of distasteful site culture. I think there's still a lot of good to celebrate on this site, and if the scale ever tips the other way, I'd probably be among the first to leave.

That scale is sometimes delicately perched, isn't it, Michael. It is for me, quite often.

You're quite right, Doug, but if I recall correctly, you had much to do with my current posture which I never thanked you for. :-)

: ) You're an asset to the community, Michael, as is Walter. The site tends to grind a person down, that's for sure, but there are microcosms within that are nurturing, to a degree. Photonet is a big machine. It's mechanized and operated by robots. You can only expect so much from it.

Wonderful night shot, well composed. I don't mind the bottom half being so dark, the details only barely visible... well the night is dark by it's nature.

 

Jiri

Gorgeous shot, don't know if any light painting would have merely caused a distraction from the rest of the trellace detail...I say it's damn fine as-is. I'm just outside of NYC now, and really need to hit the bridges - but have been waiting for dawns that weren't 10 degrees with high winds:)

 

I'm tempted to join the boycott. I feel my visibility is fine, mostly, and too would do it on principle alone. Besides, I've made so many enemies out of the mate raters that I've been emailing with translated text of the Rating Guidelines that they wait for me in the wings like ruthless vampire bats, I fear. Good old 'tam tam' in particular, who has read my stinging words on more than a few occaisions.

 

I'm still working on getting prohibited in the Feedback Forum, needling them to post the ratings guidelines in other languages (Spanish and several Middle Eastern dialects), and too have Brian email those guidelines with a warning to the utmost offenders, whose often medicore pics I'm so tired of seeing every damn day on the TRP.

 

It's so predictable now it's pathetic. The same 15 -20 some-odd characters slapping each others' backs, "Calvinball" doing apprently nothing. If it's a cute female, or even merely a female in the group, the high-rates intensify from the peacock-like boys.

 

It's sad to see it happen with some of them, who really do take some great photos sometimes. But you can bet your life that they'd do it a lot more often, and even better, if they actually received ANY kind of actual constructive criticism from each other. But they don't. Only flattery. And if you try to make suggestions, it's too often met with hostility, their egos now making them beyond reproach. Twice now, their reposnes to me were boiled down to, "My work has been in shows and galleries! How dare you!" And, in a matrix where "4" is "average" among the worlds' tens of thousands of photographers, "4" is now an insult, a "low rate" worthy of retaliation.

 

I can honestly say that I've not learned more from any other source than at Photo.net. I started this as a hobby a few years ago, and guiding hands here, in the gallery, in the forums, all helped so much.

 

And as you clearly pointed out, it's other new folks who suffer. At least once a month you can read in the Feedback forum that someone is new here, and can't get any ratings or feedback, baffled by the others' participation.

 

tam tam has the answer now, of course - rate the other Mate Raters highly, put mundane comments like "Wonderful, 7/7" on mundane photos, and reap the "rewards." No participation in forums, no sharing of information, no giving, no taking - only the hunt for glory. It is a sad day indeed when I realized that like so much else in tis world, Photo.net too has sold out, abandoning its integrity, letting tam tam and the others continue.

 

I've taken 4 shots I'd like to post, but haven't done it, lately. My last submission was nearly two weeks ago. I've shared them with members who've given me honest criticism via email, and that's fine. I'm just losing my taste for being a part of a "community" that allows such deceptions. I'll try to stay for the Good Fight, and support your decision, Walt.

In the time since I've been a member, I've cycled through quite a few different atttitudes, including "W0W, this site is GOD!," and "What a bore," and "What a total Joke." and then some. I have to agree, it's hard to participate when you see the cancers that afflict photonet, and you feel utterly powerless to help, no matter how much flag waving you do. I've concluded that photonet can't be the same thing to everyone, that it has become a little bit of this to some, a little bit of that to others, etc. The sad thing is that two of the most highly visible parts of photonet, i.e., the POW, and the TRP, are also the most subject to abusive behavior by the membership. Management's goal of a huge membership is contrary to the goal some members have for a quality membership. I guess you can't have both.

of people to support me. Since I have made my position known, I have received a few sysmpathetic comments, some of which were only changed later by the posters after they thought about the consequences. I understand that. My request to join my boycott is rhetorical. It is a decision that you make in your heart and with your own conscience.

The abuse and corruption that is so obvious at PhotoNet is an insult to anyone who places a value on artistic truth. Management's adamantine decision to place revenue generation far above the basic ethical tenets of an intelligent society SHOULD be seen as revulsive and SHOULD be seen as an abuse to the PhotoNet Community. To continue to post under this collaboration between management and the abusers, for me, significantly reduces the value that I myself place on what I create. Regards.

I must state that I did post one more photograph after my decision was made. There were extenuating circumstances for that post, and I will delete it after this Friday. Regards.

"anyone who places a value on artistic truth."

 

You are probably right, Walt, but you can't say photonet has failed to deliver, because they've never admitted to this value.

Walter, I edited my previous comment voicing my support for you not because of it's consequences, which I don't care for, but because I'm not such a good photographer as you (and Doug and others) and would probably fall in the second category - those who manage to catch a decent shot once in a while. What would my opinion be for, then... Jiri

Doug, I personally feel that at least re rating, the site has not only "admitted" to but DEFINED how members are to express "value" on a given photograph. It's clearly stated in the Rating Guidelines. If the site posts those guidelines, then fails to reinforce/enforce them, then what's the point of even having them in the system as it currently exists (ratings vs. visibility)?

 

And what's worse is that in actuality, where "minority" is concerned (see your earlier comment above), there's really less than 40 people I see regularly abusing this system. That's an easy fix, wouldn't you say? 40 people are hardly increasing site traffic/profitability so much that they need "special" treatment when compared to the integrity of the wntire community?

Jiri, you're full of it! "I'm not such a good photographer .... and would probably fall in the .... category - those who manage to catch a decent shot once in a while. "

 

Biggest untruth I've read on here in quite a while.

 

 

Chris, you're right, I just hate to see someone like Walt leave because his departure does nothing to Photonet, per se, but instead degrades the experience of us, his peers and admirers. Seems to me, with the system as screwed up as it is, it would be more nobler to stay because his continued presence makes it a little more worthwhile for the rest of us. A sacrifice for him, sure, but he can still hold to his principles by not participating in the aspects of photonet that he finds undesireable. I mean, is the whole site rotten? Or just certain parts?

I should not have phrased that comment in that way. In truth, I do not know why you edited your previous comment, but I believe, from knowing how you have contributed to the well-being of PhotoNet in the past, that they were honest and valid reasons. The fact that you posted at all means a great deal.

You are absolutely wrong about not being a good photographer; you are one of the better ones on this site. But beyond that, your opinion is valuable because you are an honest member. Regards.

no, the whole site is not rotten, just the head and its most visible face (Gallery, TRP, and POW). Those parts are as close to being as leporous as they can.

The countless majority of the membership is also a strong and healthy part of the PhotoNet body. In fact they ARE PhotoNet. As I have said before, many of these good members just fall by the wayside because of a handful of abusers and this administration's refusal to deal with them directly. As Chris mentions above, there are only a handful of accounts that could and should be excised if this body is not to become totally putrid

In addition, the Pentax 6x7 Forum, the Digital Darkroom Forum, and a couple of others that I visit are still viable organs in the PhotoNet body. Those Greenspun initiated forums are what first brought me into the Community here; I won't stop visiting those. I have a paid-up subscription for three years and I intend to get my money out of this site one way or another. And if my calling is to become a thorn in PhotoNet's foot, then so be it. Regards.

Right now there is a member who is flooding the Gallery with mostly snapshots. The majority do not have RFC's attached, yet each has been rated with multiple 7's by several accounts who rate nearly exclusively the photographs of this one member. Their average ratings of this one photographer's snapshots are very nearly a perfect 7. Hundreds of them!

And alongside this travesty is the lone work of one of PhotoNet's better members, sinking out of sight as the flood of abuse continues.

I must have missed it. It looks more or less normal, now, which means lots of drama, birds, insects and all in color.

OK Walter, but after reflecting on your comments as well as the observations of others my feeling is yes, you are correct in your objections but incorrect in the boycott. Why do the gallery and ratings matter at all? With the depth of your talent and the obvious and justified interest of people in your work, why can't you use this forum in the way you choose? Which means as a vehicle for posting your work and exchanging thoughful comments with a small group of individuals who don't play the gallery game. Regards, Bob.

Because, Bob, I'm a fool. Regards.

I don't think you're a fool at all. "Passive" protest is successful at the very least in raising awareness, as all of these comments reinforce. With each person that reads it, one more case of heightened awareness may result. And as knowledge is power, the potential for change is raised.

 

Me? I'm poking the Admins' steel-tipped boots with a platic fork, and wreaking havoc with my new Spanish translator. Maybe unrewarding, but hey.

Hardly a fool, Walter. I admire the principled stand you are taking, and I think it is a reasonable response to what is happening here. But it is not the only response, and there may be a better way for those who share these values to use at least a small portion of this forum. I fear all the boycott will do is eliminate the remaining pockets of quality here. Best, Bob

Christopher, what's important to individual members might not even be on the radar screen of an understaffed organization. If you consider the amount of work involved to keep this site going, it wouldn't take long to realize the absurdity of 2 paid staff (Brian and Bob, at last count) on a shoestring and a bunch of volunteers doing the work of what would otherwise require tens of full time people in a fully equipped facility.

 

There are perhaps reasons why it's this way, and that's a whole other issue; suffice to say one doesn't worry about next year's fashion when ones pants are on fire. I've chosen to support this site, without lighting more fires, by being a good site-citizen, friendly with others, offering help if I can, and turning people around one at a time. Maybe fruitless, but hey.

Walt, I love this and all of your most recent shots.

 

I went back to Tam Tam's photo and thought that I had found that all of my rather mildly critical remarks were gone, that they must have been deleted after the week ended. It turned out that I was reading the original comments, before it became PoW. My critical remarks were still there.

 

That example is instructive. Often I come out breathing fire and brimstone, only to find that I was wrong. I have become a bit more circumspect.

 

Even so, I share your revulsion at many of the practices that go on unchecked, but I could give a hang about the ratings game. Perhaps I would feel differently if my photos were candidates were TRPs.

 

The site sickens me at times, but I keep posting for my friends and anyone else who cares to look, because I think that the good overwhelmingly exceeds the bad. I also use the site for technical advice and still consider it a strong site in spite of some nausesous practices and comments.

 

Brian doesn't care what anyone thinks, anymore than Greenspun did. There is a good and a bad side to that, but I'll take the good and leave the bad. PN is a microcosm of life, and I don't personally see the point of leaving either.

 

As for boycotts, my feeling is that I still get a lot more out of the site than I put in. Combine that with the truth of what Phil Greenspun said in March, 2002 ("you could all leave and the site would be full again in a week," or something like that), and there is nothing to be gained by a boycott, in my opinion. Besides, a boycott is a political act, and I taught politics for twenty plus years in the classroom. I am sick of it, although I cannot escape it. I can, however, escape the struggles for power, however, and I opt out of all that. I just post and comment now. I don't even try to influence site policy anymore, and the Site Feebback forum is so boringly predictable most of the time that even it is no longer fun reading.

 

The site was made originally primarily for sharing technical information, and that is what I now use it for the most, although I still enjoy posting. I exist on the margins of most establishments in which I live. To be left alone to do my thing is all I ask, and PN does grant me that.

 

I started visiting this site in the fall of 1999, but did not become a member until 2001. I will watch the future of the site with interest but with a certain amount of emotional detachment.

 

As for your claims about Brian, I have not investigated them, since, as I said, the ratings thing bores me. Besides, my own purposes here are not affected by those storms raging over such issues. I don't even know what Brian thinks about many issues now, but I think that on many things he is right. Even so, I have not bothered to look into your latest claims. I'm sorry. It's nothing personal. I just don't care anymore about such issues.

 

PN is a business now, in a way that it really wasn't when Phil was first working with it. Phil put his soul into it, and Brian puts his own technical expertise into it. I do think that Brian is honestly trying his best. I applaud them both for the good that they have done. As for our differences, I don't even bother to air them anymore. It's a curious state of affairs, but I refuse to let PN get me bent out of shape. If I wanted to fight battles, I would fight other ones--prison reform, the defense establishment, etc. I come here as a refuge, and it is refuge enough most of the time.

Thanks Lannie. As usual, you have some pretty good insights to consider.

I would like to thank everyone, Doug, Chris, Robert, Michael, Becky, Jiri (sorry for the misunderstanding!), and again Lannie for stopping by and offering your viewpoints on the situation. I appreciate it.

PhotoNet will never improve until the administration decides that it needs improving. My view and Brian's view are obvious antipodes. Perhaps one day there will be some common ground to enjoy. Regards.

Well Walt, times they are a changin', after all. Anyone who hasn't visited Site Feedback lately should take a look, specifically for the recent strings (April 8th and 9th) that address the plethora of community members who started to rant about the nonsense as well. Seems like we're NOT the only "whiners" after all.

 

As a result, Admins have taken some action, including changing the default TRP pages to reflect recent Request for Critique successes instead of the previous view. It certainly has made a difference.

 

I'm wondering what the non-English speakers who've been dominating with the mate rates will think of it all.

 

So. You off your boycott?! :)