geri

Thank you <b>Bob Atkins</b>, <b>JDM von Weinberg</b>, and <b>Josh Root</b> for your responses. : )<br>

I think it was the lifetime membership that I was vaguely recalling... <br><br>

 

At any rate, I'll simply do the multiple year thingey, and maintain my best behaviour...<br>

It would suck to lose a multiple-year subscription due to bad manners. :p

k. This might seem odd, but....<br><br>

 

Is it possible to renew my subscription for more than 3 years?<br>

I clicked the 'renew' link and it seems the max renewal is 3 years.<br><br>

 

Though I haven't commented in the galleries for some time, I still love the site and visit often.<br>

Since you obviously can't get rid of me :p, I would appreciate the ability to renew for up to 10 years and get it

over with. :p<br><br>

 

Please forgive me if I chose the wrong forum. The feedback area seemed the most appropriate area for this

question.<br>

And btw, y'all need to fix the typo <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-post-new?topic_id=201"><u>here</u></a>

that says,<br>

"<i>Please <b>not</b> that Casual Conversation</i>..."<br><br>

 

LOL

Well, I'd love a chrome job.<br><br>

(That didn't sound right...)<br>

At any rate, yes, I'm female, and yes, Geri is my real name. If you have any of that polish left, I'm in. And no hairy feet. :P

Same here. So I right-clicked to view the image and saw this message:

 

"The image, "http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2569917-lg.jpg" cannot be displayed, because it contains errors."

...And I hope I didn't sound overbearing, or authoritarian. I know exactly where you're coming from. I also hate to see someone else's work filched, whether it be a photo, or an essay, etc.

 

One thing that was funny, though, was that you saved the photo.

 

 

...You remind me of me. LOL!

<i>"...And posting someone else's address on a website is a very unkind and irresponsible thing to do."<br>

--(Brian Mottershead)</i>

 

And <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008w37">here</a> is where you can read his entire post, where he also stated that e-mail addresses posted in the open are harvested.

...I needed that today.

Well, Barry, sounds great to me. Can't recall how many times I've forgotten the name of a thread, and clicked through a few to find the one I wanted.

I looked at your example. It's a wonderful idea; but I can't imagine the pages and pages that would be required to display the hundreds of 'snippets' for the Site Feedback forum alone.

<i>"Summarize?"</i>

Fair enough, .[. Z... LOL! But, I gave the link to show yet another area where the idea of exlucing non-photographers has been beaten to death.

<i>"...To qualify they'd have to be skilled (pro or amateur) photographers...</i>"<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008oEO">Gave my thoughts on that.</a> Specifically in my last 2 posts.

I'm glad you posted a link to that photo. I can't wait to see his folder now. <b>:P</b> Just teasing ya'...

 

Your post made me have a look at your folder. Wow. I never knew black & white could be so luminous, and that beautiful... I felt as if I was looking into someone's dream. I've bookmarked it, you at least have another fan!

Nikos, I don't even have photos here, but I consider that practice to be highly disrespectful. From time to time, it has made me chuckle, though, because the person has made him/herself to look like a perfect fool. It is childish at best, rude at worst. Either way, it diminishes their reputations in the eyes of others.

Sandeha, I would like to thank you for your comment; and I'm pleasantly suprised that you took the time to read my info.<br>

For that, I also thank you. <b>: )</b><br><br>

 

Steve, whereas I understand your point that it is not a community of critics--(which is not what I consider myself to be, but a supporter and lover of the arts)-- I also don't think there should be such a high level of exclusivity, barring onlookers from commenting. Why, if the person has been moved by a photo, should he/she not be allowed to say it? An important point has been missed here: <b>some</b> comments by non-photographers do have "real meaning"; which is subjective, determined only by the recipient of the comments. If my input had not been appreciated or considered to be of any merit, why have photographers taken the time to e-mail me? And yet, I have never seen one photo or folder posted with a note stating that it should only be commented on by photographers. I would respect this preference. <br><br>

 

The notion that non-photographers have nothing to add to PN is erroneous. Since it is obvious that some mind these comments and others do not, perhaps a note should be left under specific photos, distinguishing them as "comments from photographers only." This is the only solution that comes to mind, and one that I would heed. Quite frankly, I don't want to share my input where it isn't wanted.

"In view of the dissatisfaction caused by activities of non-posters..."<br>

I am not being deliberately picky; I simply would like to point out that it is the activities of <b>some</b> non-posters.<br><br>

 

"Finally, I can't see how the requirement to post photos should offend anyone, and it might even have the benefit of causing one to think twice before acting."<br>

 

Obviously, I can only speak for myself. I take no offense to this, and can fully understand why any photographer would suggest this. But a little note: some photographers <b>do</b> appreciate feedback from those that take no pictures. The responses I've received, both here in PN and through e-mail, demonstrate this. Evidently, some here find validity in the opinions of those who may be camera-challenged. :P<br><br>

 

Final note... not all of us that don't/can't post photos take this site lightly, or need to "think twice" before commenting or rating. Some of us already do. I highly respect what this site is about, and the works that are being posted. I became a paying member for a reason.

It's okay, Olivier. I think everyone understands your frustration. I've read many responses from photographers about receving a poor rating with no explanation, or helpful critique. No one said, "Oh, JOY!" when it happened. LOL! You've got plenty of company. :)

<b>Venecia</b>, I love your idea. As you said, those that never intended to rate wouldn't heed the note; but I also believe it would cause many to reconsider, and add something in addition to their rate. If a statement of this nature is ever included, I think your sentence should be used verbatim. :)<br><br>

 

<b>David</b>, you're my hero. :) :) I don't say anything when people complain about those with no photos rating pictures. I just think to myself, "<i>I bet they can't sing a lick, but they have a favorite band/singer/group...and reasons they could list without hesitation...</i>" Well, now... You expressed my exact feelings far better than I would have. So, I don't have to say anything more. Thank you!<b>:D</b>

Jacques, just to say... before the changes, I recently downloaded your .mp3 and listened while observing your picture. Your idea was marvellous, and I thoroughly enjoyed it! (I listened twice, took me that long to get past the one man's fascinating eyes). Hope it can be included in your thread again. : )

LOL, it's okay, Milton. Click on the person's name, and you'll see the "Mark this person..." link right next to their name in the page that opened. Go to "My Workspace" and scroll down to see your own list. :)

Darn. I just woke up, read that. I didn't know we can't edit our comments anymore, (99% of mine have been comments, not "critiques"). Oh well. Once again, I'll try to get it right the first time. Guess I can't be lazy and use the cushion of post-editing to modify... :P

LOL, sorry, Jay. Wondered if my post wouldn't be clear after I submitted. I was referring to the 3rd column that summarizes the rates received for Aesthetics & Originality. It looks "neater", and eliminates the additional step of viewing another page just to see the full list of rates. Hope I'm clear this time. ( ? )

The only time I didn't see the link was if I had already marked that person as interesting. If you didn't mark that person, it could be just some current "tweaking" to the system that's temporarily interfering.

Well, I like it. Good idea to summarize the ratings in this way. Far

better than seeing 6/6 or whatever, a hundred times over under the

same photograph's ratings.

"Secondly, IMO, the fact that a rater have posted pictures or not on Pnet, doesnt make his judgement more valid."<br>

<b>Thank you.</b>

I don't know if you read this thread or not, but take a deep breath, and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008iD1">click here</a>. You can see several of Brian's responses along with members' comments here. : )