dant

All of the sudden we talk about money. While I completely understand that the site is not running by the will of gods, I may assume that any cause is lost. I mean, voices who want changes are a minority, I'm I wright? What should we bother with this discussion anyway? There will be at any time a lot of people willing to pay for their ego. I think now it is almost a perfect system for this purpose, you can even worsen it to attract new subscribers. An automated system to praise new subscribers with 'wow' comments would be a proposal. Sorry if I offend anyone, I say what I feel. <BR>And maybe a point that it will look ridiculous. Not all the members feel at ease to pay even the small amount that you request. World is large, and talents grow everywhere. I guess.

Thank you Cristopher for your comment. I almost totally share your points. I tried to touch this point of photographer as an artist on a post in this thread. Instead, sometimes if not always, the signals seen on photonet speak about photographer vs. artist. Also I had the feeling that creativity could die if improperly exposed. Or it can be turned in other directions (due to popular demand). Anyhow, the thread discussed other issues finally.<BR><BR>

I just wonder how a painter's community would look like. Would they talk about brushes, dyes, canvases, trendy techniques? The most hype colour, the latest rule o 3rd available? And the most (say) Picasso like paint would be a top rated paint? I don't know, maybe they do. I just feel that, sometimes, a photographic creation is treated just like a sum of technical ingredients. Which is at least unfair.<BR><BR>

And ratings? Just competition, a concept that drives the world. It's just a reflection of our egos actually, we need numbers to compare. Even art, even feelings, even creativity. Even egos :)<BR><BR>

Why should we care who votes or why as long as we are winners.

Actually, the interface for critique ('Editor's list', 'Critique by cathegory' and 'Critique circles') hardly encourages anything other than batch ratings. Maybe it would've been better if the browse had been made by actually jumping form one photo page to another (a sort of frame or a modified layout for photo's pages). Seeing the photo in context, with all information and existing comments would request maybe more attention from the critics. I agree that seeing just the image with the ratings and opinions hidden could help objectivity, but batch rating is a side effect not to be neglected. Just an opinion among others.

Seven, your <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=176796">hotlinks</A> are here :)

As the originator of this thread, I'm very pleased on how animated it became. I pointed in a previous response what photo.net roles would be. Reading the discussion, I may draw the conclusion that this place is mainly a "convenient exhibition place for top photographers". <BR>

My issue was visibility. And this not to be appreciated, but evaluated. And maybe to share with others the moment when I took the photo. And I want to know if and why I succeeded or fail in my attempt. I had pictures hanged on an exhibition hall. This was satisfying in a way. Just to know that somebody is looking at them. I didn't stand next to them, asking people: "what do you think?". I have choosen photo.net for this, to be critiqued, evaluated, discussed. I tried to play this role for others.<BR>

I guess I have to be first a top photographer and then I might be visible (don't mind the paradox). And then I would have other specific problems, mostly ego related :) Some understood that and they became top photographers :) not only by the quality of the work they exhibit here but also by tricking the system. My problem was that I have not received any input except the 6 speechless ratings (it looks like just another ego problem, I agree). I have spent a lot of time in schools being rated about everyting. And there, at least, there were other signals and possibilities to understand why you are so good, so bad or so briliantly mediocre. I didn't receive even insults. How could I get at least some of these? :) They could be meaningful sometimes.

And, Marc. I remembered now that I received a long time ago (!) two or three meaningful critiques (one of the few on my photos) from you. Not necessarily I agreed with your point, but helpful by no means. This kind of being able to watch and spend time with a photo :) is maybe what's missing here. So, I think you are needed.

It was not my intention to provoke this kind of reaction. Normally, turning the back helps nobody but the shooter :)<BR>I restrained my activity here not because I thought my gesture would change anything, but just because of some dissapointment. My ego advise me to say: who the heck am I anyway? :) <BR>

About ego driven communities. I guess that's human nature always trying to compete. And with a proper numerical system, ego boost only come naturally. What I mean is, the system could influence behaviors (not to be read as manipulate behaviors). What's pitty maybe is that artists are human also. Or I'm going to far considering that in each photographer lies an artist?<BR>

I noticed a strange thing (sorry that I speak out of the subject maybe). By being here too much, my creativity suffered. I was dissapointed sometimes by the poor answer that I received. This led to lack of confidence in my own way of expressing things. Or, worse, I thought that the only valid photography is the one that is the most successful in terms of top photos page presence. So, I guess taking a distance can only help in this regard also.<BR>

Thank you all for the helpful comments. This turned into a interesting thread. Brian Mottershead described exactly what happens technically, that's an important answer to my question. I received tips in how to 'trick' the system in order to get attention. Well, I know how to do it since I spent a lot of time observing things at the begining of my presence here. Still I don't want to do it. This is not a natural system to live with or leave it. There's another possibility here: It is managed by people, therefore it could be changed.<BR><BR> I think we have to define first what's the purpose of this site. Is it a convenient exhibition place for top photographers, is it a learning place, is it a club of friendly people that share ideas and communicate, is it a file sharing site? I think now it's all of the above. From my point of view, it fails short on every aspect. I've learned that I'm far from being a top photographer, I'm not an absolute beginner, I don't always feel that this is a community, I have other places where to share my files (I didn't even give to my friends my address here), and I don't have a high speed connection :)<BR><BR> For me, the rating system by itself is useless. It allows batch one-second-glance critiques. This cannot help anybody. At least tying a rating with a comment would be a good enhancement, even is this is already done with 'wow' comments of top photos. I'm sure this has been said before. And also a lot of other suggestions. I don't have the time to make a real analysis of the problem. I think this is already done by the administrators by analysing the database requests for understanding the users' behavior and by taking into consideration each piece of users' feedback (like this one). I just feel a bit of frustration that was solved by simply retiring (that could only help an already crowded place)<BR><BR> I guess I want too much of this site. Still, on the objective side, I think it needs improvements.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Dan.

I am a member of photonet from february. I enjoyed most of the time

spent here. I posted photos, received some feedback on them, rated

and critiqued other's photos. At a certain point I restricted my

activity. This was happening after seeing several times the most

recent photos page (the random one) having 6-7 seven photos of the

same photographer out of nine. I see now some restrictions in the

submission limit. I don't know how effective they are. I posted since

then from time to time some photos. Each time, for two or three days

seemed that anybody at least looked at my photo. Then, invariable, 6

ratings were received. No comment, no communication, no feedback. I

can assume that my photos are so bad that seems to enter in a sort of

neglected photos list and then I receive a standard quantity of

attention. Still, I note a big difference between the time I joined

the site and the situation now. Can anybody explain me what happened,

or at least what I miss here? Thanks.

I agree with Richard :). I was about to post an opinion, but I think Brian very elegantly pointed what I was about to say. Some other forums have a limit in the number of photos posted in a certain period of time. But I see reluctance in trying to impose to many rules. Maybe this is what I like about photo.net - in spirit, but not always in results.