matthew_s._schwartz

Hello,

 

This problem has bugged me for a while. Nothing major at all, but when

you post a comment and then it gives you options afterward to edit or

delete it, the left parenthesis before the word delete is missing.

 

This:

Matthew S. Schwartz, Photo.net Patron, July 08, 2005; 01:10 P.M.

(edit) | delete)

 

Should be this:

Matthew S. Schwartz, Photo.net Patron, July 08, 2005; 01:10 P.M.

(edit) | (delete)

 

That is all. I am a stickler. Thank you. :-)

 

Matt

In all honesty, the title of this thread was only meant to get peoples' attention. :-) I like

the photos a lot, and I am very pleased to see what a good photographer Nimoy is.

 

the shots are creative, artistic, and imaginative -- completely opposite from the traditional

notions of logic and rationality, I'd say. I like em!

<a href="http://www.leonardnimoyphotography.com"

target="_blank">http://www.leonardnimoyphotography.com</a>

<p>

Check it out... I find some of the photos fascinating. Others just

plain strange. :-) thoughts?

Constance, I don't even know the guy. Just wanted to tell him that not everybody endorses the idea of giving children free rein on a site full of nudes.

I clicked on Joe's name so I could get his e-mail address and send him some words of support... and I found this:

 

"This user is deleted from the community."

 

His photos were wonderful. He provided intelligent commentary. Can anyone please explain why he was deleted?

I agree completely. I call it like I see it (tactfully), and that makes a lot of people angry. I have been the subject of retaliation, and at some point I think honest critiques will lose out in favor of simple low rankings.

 

The problem there is that even with the anonymous ranking system, some folks sit around watching for low rankings figuring out who left it... and that has earned me additional retaliatory commments / rankings.

 

Honesty is the best policy -- usually. Sometimes it's best just to keep one's mouth shut.

Hello,

 

I notice this was suggested a month ago but no one responded to it. I

think it would be very useful to have a "next" and "previous" text

link on each single photo page. When I find a photographer I like, I

usually browse their entire gallery (or most of it). It would be

easier to just click "next" to see the next photo in their gallery...

 

This would also reduce the load on your servers (by not constantly

having to reload the gallery pages), and in general make things a

little snappier.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks,

Matt

Doug: "It's the averages, stupid" is an allusion to early 90's politics. To focus Clinton's first presidential campaign, advisor James Carville told him to keep coming back to one thing. Every time he could, Carville wrote on a whiteboard for Clinton see: "It's the economy, stupid."

 

So, no one's calling anyone stupid. :-)

 

Mark: Low ratings upset everybody, but Brian's right about the averages. It's like workshopping a piece of creative writing: If one person says he hates it, or doesn't get it, you can safely ignore his comments. If EVERYBODY says they don't get it, then you should start paying attention. ;-)

GP,

 

The "submit photo" page now has a disclaimer requesting that people categorize their shot

as "nude" if there is any nudity in it whatsoever. I assume the PN people are preparing for

a day when they can give me the option to filter out those photos in inappropriate

situations.

 

Our comments had transformed into pure rhetoric, anyway, and neither you nor I are

changing our minds, so I see no point in continuing.

 

Thanks for an interesting debate,

 

Matt

You know what, GP? I've changed my mind. You're right. Let's embrace the art on this site.

Let 's show it to our children, and to our bosses, and what the hell, let's post it on the

front page of photo.net.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=730431&include=all"

target="_blank">I think we should start with Jerry Hamilton's WONDERFUL photos, which

did NOT make me lose my lunch, DEFINITELY do not count as pornography, and are every

bit as classy as Michaelangelo's David.</a>

<p>

Thank you, GP, for showing me the light. This art has so impassioned me, I am almost

tempted to create my OWN art. Almost.<p>

Love,<br>

Matt<div></div>

Perhaps we are coming at this from different angles. I don't see it as censorship; I used the

term "self-censorship" but probably a better term would be "notification" or "heads up,

there's some breasts in here." There are no value judgements attached to any such

flagging; it's just a factual statement.

 

I assumed your questions were rhetorical, but I'll do my best at answering them:

 

If my hypothetical children (I have none, as far as I know) were playing at the neighbor's,

and there were nudes on the wall, I would likely have no problem with it. My problem

would begin when the nudes turn toward the erotic. It is, of course, subjective, and a

definition of degree... basically I would have a problem once it became too close to

pornography. What is pornography? The greatest minds have grappled with that answer

and come up empty. I will paraphrase the US Supreme Court, which wrote that they could

not explicitly define pornography, but "I know it when I see it."

 

If my neighbors had erotica on the walls, I would probably prefer that my children not play

there.

 

You state that I have made a choice: In order to obey the rules, I would glady curtail

another's freedom. I urge you to look at this from the opposite point of view: I arguably

have the freedom to peruse photo.net at my leisure. Must I have nudity forced on me it

situations that don't call for it, a la the scenario YOU pointed out -- public terminals?

 

Photo.net is not advertised as a site with erotica, and honestly, I was stunned when I saw

that the most popular photographers have lots of erotica in their galleries. I was not

offended, mind you, only surprised. Nowhere in the terms of service or on the main page

or on the sign up page or on my membership page was I told that many galleries contain

nudity. Before I signed up and really started looking around, I had no idea nudity was even

permitted on the boards.

 

So, we both have different desires: You want the freedom to post nudity, and I want the

freedom to filter that nudity. We need not choose one freedom over another -- they can

live in harmony! The simple solution is an option for artists to designate their photos as

"nudes." This attaches no moral judgment to the photos, but only makes others aware of

it, and permits them to divert their gaze if that is what they desire. There is no regulation,

only categorization. The photos are still available to everyone who wants to see them.

Everyone is happy.

 

GP, how is checking a "Contains Nudity" box an undue burden upon your rights?

 

Your Companion through Thick and Thin,

 

Matt

Wow, looks like I've touched a nerve...

<p>

I am quite taken aback by the hostility, Giordano. You took my innocent suggestion and construed it as a personal insult against you! FYI, the "protect the children" idea wasn't even mine, it was Reiner's. I just thought he had a good point. Read on:

<p>

I have absolutely no problem with nudity. I just want to be able to click on photographers' names during work without nudity popping up on my screen. Respectfully, sir, there is quite a difference betewen Michaelangelo's "David" and, for instance, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1670391" target="_blank">this</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1455780" target="_blank">this</a> or <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2014930" target="_blank">this</a>.

<p>

Don't get me wrong; I think those photos are all amazing, and deserve to be seen. But I would not want my children to see them. I would not feel comfortable looking at them on a work computer, or on a public terminal. They are great photographs, and very erotic... But eroticism obviously has no place in most offices.

<p>

Giordano, I am not "curtailing your freedom," and I sorry to hear you feel I am "beyond salvation." (I must admit, however, that was creative.) I am simply suggesting a simple check box, so that others would have the opportunity to filter out images they find offensive, or unsuitable for their environment.

<p>

That's all. Lighten up. :-)

<p>

Your friend,<br>Matt

If the filter didn't work properly all the time, or if some people failed to check the "nudity" box, photo.net would still be completely immunized from lawsuits. Take a look at the following line in the "Terms of Use" (accessible from the links at the bottom of the page):<p><blockquote><h4>UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL photo.net., OR ITS AFFILIATES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF USE OF THE SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, EVEN IF WE ARE ADVISED BEFOREHAND OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</h4></blockquote><p>So, the legalese is already in there. Photo.net could also explicity add a section to the TOS on "Nudity," and state that some photos contain nudity, and there is a filter in place, but it is not guaranteed and the user views the site at his own risk. Photo.net will not be responsible for any damages arising out of..... blah blah blah.<p>Photo.net doesn't have to guarantee it will work... Even without seeing a poll, I can guarantee you it would be very appreciated by many users, including me. :-)<p>Matt

I understand that there are arguments on both sides, but I think that the minor amount of

self-censorship would, in the end, be less inconvenient than the possibility of getting

disciplined. The point about children viewing photo.net and coming across nudes also has

merit.

 

And think of it this way: Any photo the photographer has flagged will probably receive

three times the page views! :-) Just look at the "most interesting" photographers here...

do you think it's just a coincidence that the collection is almost entirely made up of

suggestive nude poses?

 

Maybe Brian can put up a poll to see how people feel about this. There might be more

interest in a self-imposed filter than one might think...

I am allowed to surf the web while I am on a break, or eating lunch. Everyone in the office

is. I enjoy looking at photo.net but I have run into so many thumbnails of nudes, that I am

not sure if I will be able to look at it anymore. I would be fired for looking at naked

pictures, not for using the Internet. I think many people have the same kind of policy.

 

Matt

Hello,

 

I was wondering if it would be possible to somehow warn that there

are nude photos in a portfolio before I click on a gallery. I don't

know if this is feasible or not, but I often look at photo.net at

work, and obviously there is a policy against looking at

any "questionable" material over the Internet. Of course, everything

on here is undeniably NOT pornography, but A) the work policy doesn't

care, B) some of it does come close.

 

Here is my suggestion: On the photo submission page, right after "Is

this photo untouched?", perhaps you could place a checkbox that one

could select if his photo is a nude? Then perhaps there could be some

way to flag such galleries so that I don't accidentally open them at

the office (and possibly fired).

 

I don't know if this is at all feasible, but I would like to be able

to use this site at the office without fear of running across a

random naked person.

 

Then again, I probably should be working anyway. :-)

 

Matt

Agreed -- I recommended the same thing last week. Either have an option to show a particular panel when it loads up, or all of them at once. I do like that the "Critique" panel is pre-expanded when I am looking at photos that request critiques...

I agree completely. The shakiness of last week has mostly disappeared, and I like the change. :-) There is one problem on my Safari browser -- sometimes the Options / Details / Critique / Rate bar doesn't show up as a table with cells, but rather like this: OptionsDetailsCritiqueRate ... the individual links still work, but it's just all scrunched together. I will figure out exactly when this hapens and let you know, Brian.

 

One suggestion: I would LOVE a "Send this to a friend" option that lets you email interesting photos to your friends! I am always copying and pasting links into my browser, and it would be a lot easier to just click a link. Is this possible?

What does everybody have against Walmart? I love finding $7 shirts that actually look good

on me. And they sell cheap little frames that I can use for my cheap little photos --

otherwise my snapshots would just be puttied to my walls. Here's a response to all those

who cite the "30% of businesses go under when a Walmart moves in" figure: Most

communities with a Walmart use it as their anchor store in big retail developments. I live in

Cleveland Heights, and Walmart is the anchor, surrounded by a Borders, Home Depot,

Bally's, Regal Cinema... It is wonderful to have one place to go for all your needs. Sure, the

clientelle aren't as well-groomed or clean as say, people who shop at Target, but how

much can we ask for, really?

 

Puppy Face, were you serious when you said Walmart posed a great threat than Osama?? I

honestly thought you were being facetious, but it soon became clear you honestly believe

that..... Why??

Doug, feel free to respond... I have pretty thick skin and I won't be offended at what you

have to say. Again, I want to apologize for being harsh earlier. I

appreciate all the work the administrators do to make this site the best it can be. I just got

a little frustrated that one day after I decided to pay for a year subscription, the "edit

comment" function completely broke and the entire look was tweaked.

With so many people prefering to see the technical data without having to click under each photo, could the site administrators provide an option that would automatically expand one (or more) of the fields if we so choose? Cookies and whatnot.

 

that way some people could have their cleaner interface and some could have their technical data

I wanted to apologize for being harsh in my earlier post. I really do enjoy photo.net, I love the simplicity, and I love the fact that the site administrator is so responsive. I just wish it seemed a little more polished/professional... I realize that costs money though.

 

Maybe the site would take in more money if non-subscribers' access was limited after they reached a certain level -- not necessarily number of images posted, but activeness on the site. Once it has become obvious that someone is using the site extensively and logging on all the time, and yet is not paying for it, I believe it's time to veer away from the "honor system" approach.

 

Or maybe people who are reluctant to spend $25 all at once wouldn't even blink at paying $4 on a monthly basis. That could also increase revenue, which may lead to more site improvements.

 

Then again, this discussion is probably best kept in a different thread. :-) And I realize the presumptuousness of someone who's been here one week making suggestions about the layout / pricing scheme as though I am a founder. Maybe I'll just sit back and relax for a while.....

Brian, I was a professional web designer before law school.

 

ALL professional sites post TEST pages and do all their tinkering offline before making it operational. To simply thrust these changes upon us piecemeal, without extensive testing, and without any sort of rhyme or reason, is totally uncalled for.

 

Matt

When I try to "delete," I get the following error:

<p>

<b>You are not an administrator

<hr>

Sorry, but you must be logged on as a site wide administrator to talk to the admin pages. </b>

<p>

Why should I be an administrator to delete my own critiques? Also the edit function still doesn't work. Seriously, Brian, most professional sites post TEST pages and do all their tinkering offline before making it operational. To simply thrust these changes upon us piecemeal, without extensive testing, and without any sort of rhyme or reason, is totally uncalled for.

My security settings are pretty much the lowest available and have been for sometime.