spaghetti_western

also part of the value of having an IMAGE-ON THIS thread, or successive series of threads as we start out, is that we can exhange input with each other as this goes along about refinements and suggestions to improve the process by way of collaborative constructive criticism

laurie, glad you ask those very good questions. heres my thinking

 

1) not a problem since only persons who find the usual suspect mates photos 'interesting' will bother to 'discuss' them such as they do, many to glad hand each other, etc. remember, calling public attention to what you or i might think is an interesting photo might not generate interest if no one else agrees with our view. in which case, really, no harm no foul

 

2) once i think there is sufficient groundswell of interest in IMAGE-ON THIS then i (or others?) will initiate an IMAGE-ON THIS thread in the site feedback forum and that is where we will begin to post and find links to photos we might find interesting. the site wont sabotage this by deleting those threads since that would be just plain mean. then, once momentum picks up then PN will not resist the urge to create a separate forum for us to post those links, just like the W/NW forum

 

3) probably both. many pairs of eyes can do the job better than a narrow committee. of course there will be trolls and sincere members who will recommend dubious images. but then really no one will bother to comment on these so the extent of that type of behavior will abate of its own accord

 

and no, i havent yet outlined the formal specifics except by way of some examples and general explanation. but i will do so some time soon

"...It's an absolutely great idea and full of plain old common sense... meaning don't hold your breath..."

 

what separates the wheat from the chaff as ideas go is that IMAGE-ON THIS requires absolutely NO SITE IMPRIMATUR (no 'mommy' help) to do it. it only needs member member participation, akin to what goes on with W/NW (words/no words). once IMAGE-ON THIS gains popular GRASS ROOTS momentum then the site cannot resist to provide it with its own forum, just like W/NW has now

"...I was hoping for an option to post photos with blocked rating option. I do not want to ask for a critique for every photo and I am not interested in ratings any more. In fact in actual system looking at rates can only bring a depression..."

 

mark, that option already exists. i think you upload a new photo and request a critique and check a 'not rated' box. maybe some people will comment but they cant rate it and there is no gallery exposure. anyone know more? hope that helps

<p>"...Jeez! I didn't read Marc that way at all: a bean counter... Come clean. Are you a bogus account? Do you have other accounts here under other names?..."

 

<p>tsk, tsk, your distrusting soul. you miss the point. marc proposes some hyperbolic and convoluted way to highlight discussions that HE thinks are interesting since his penchant for verbosity would be self-rewarded with the additional attention he craves. and he wants 'mommy' (that is, photo.net) to enable that

 

<p>besides once a discussion full of many words or comments or whatever is well under way then what is the point of highlighting something that many members are already aware and participated??

 

<p>a simpler and better proposal is for members to actually facilitate interesting discussions that might never occur by calling all members attention to any photo that any one of us finds interesting. and 'mommy' need not do a thing to enable this for us

 

<p>here's an example:

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3032023" >IMAGE-ON THIS: "Olive4"</a>

say, how about we count beans? i have lots of beans. lets count my beans and your beans and see who has the most interesting collection of beans

 

since i believe that brevity is the soul of wit i use very few words. but some people go on and on and on and on. so lets count words and the more words used will measure how 'interesting' and cogent are the points we make. ditto for photos

 

get the picture?

 

and oh, lets all agree that this is something we want 'mommy' to do for us. because 'mommy' has nothing better to do. than count our beans for us

to whom it may concern - you know that your deleted posting this morning that violated site policy (re putting members on public trial) was not precisely what i had in mind about getting "inventive about the topic". hope PN sent you a well deserved warning email about doing that sort of thing again and that you will take this contritely to heart

bob - the gallery does have an alernate sortable menu where one can access photos via 'no ratings' and "all/categories' albeit that is fairly hidden

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-thumbs

walter - what i meant by getting 'inventive about the topic' was more generally about how members acting in concert can by their own actions generate more useful feedback about photos among themselves without constantly 'asking mommy' to fix things for them

 

and here is a current good example of what i mean

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AiVy

 

right. time for all of us to 'move along'

why not a direct click-on link from the highly visible PN main page beneath the POW to subscriber's requests for critique-only?

a better suggestion would be a direct click-on link from the highly visible PN main page to the critique-only section

 

the critique queue would be ill-suited for photos uploaded primarily for comments only. for one thing it is a very short list judging by the slow change in photos from day to day at least from my observations

 

but from that page one only has to select a photo and you get to the photographers photo page interface where one can study the technical details and from there enter the comment dialog

carl and walter. your disrespectful and veiled ad hominem attempts at innuendo and belittlement fascinate me about as much as your shopworn habits of beseeching brian to do things FOR YOU rather than trying to be inventive about the topic :-)

"...Sometimes the goal is to have a negative impact on particular individuals or genres of images..."

 

which genres of images? you have a habit of generalizing about this stuff. why not be specific? seems all genres of images make their way to the TRP at some point so i dont understand what it is that does not for the nefarious reasons you imply. perhaps some genres of images simply have more visual and emotional impact than others, but thats how photo contests go outside of PN so i dont think theres funny biz goin on in that respect

i agree with bob, although these really are the only interesting threads on this forum. its amazing how hyped up people get about ratings and the visibility of their photos to a bunch of strangers as generated by high ratings. they all seem to say that they want comment feedback but claim that ratings are the main avenue to accomplish them. what nonsense. they just want the high ratings and the fawning comments that go with them. and the mate rating types are constantly on the hunt for new recruits by showering corruptingly fawning comments on the unsuspecting serious photographer who is simply looking for honest feedback

ben and others - your approach is all wrong. you keep asking the site to set up something FOR YOU that itself has no interest doing. why not simply not ask it for anything? rather, why not SIMPLY DO IT ? design a self-doable idea that members can do. my modest proposal is a SIMPLY DO IT sort of thing that once the method is worked out, we just simply do it. once it gets going, the site will want to get in on the action and probably assist

neither the fleeting and populist TRP numbers nor the pro/hobby expense of bagging a particular sub genre of photograph should be of interest or value when determining categories, though i could go for 'wildlife' and 'nature' as separate entities

 

lets see, there is no cityscape category ...

i am not seeking site endorsement or its imprimatur per se. the IMAGE-ON THIS system would work akin to the NO WORDS system in that it would be up to individuals to initiate the simple action I described. it would however be useful at some point for the site to sanction a FORUM within which the IMAGE-ON THIS calls would occur since these could be disruptive and/or controversial if they occur in volume within the site feedback forum (though this would be the logical place to start it, within one or more continuiing threads)

i endorse bens prescription and wish i had time on my hands to do what he recommends

 

but another way we can drum up photo discussions is by means of a popular ALERT SYSTEM to call members attention to anothers photo that a particular member feels is not getting the attention it deserves for whatever reason

 

i am working out the kinks and details to an alert system i call IMAGE-ON THIS (as in 'imagine this'). the basic idea would be to raise a call (sort of a 'here ye, here ye') to point members to a particular photograph. the photo would be identified by an HTML link to its PN page. members would click on the link and decide individually whether they want to discuss, rate, and or ignore the photo altogether. of course it would be expected that the member who calls the alert would be first to include a comment in the PN photo page, perhaps also explaining why IMAGE-ON THIS was called there

"...Go back and reread the question..."

 

the question suggests giving in to unstated demands of some unknown rating terrorist(s) who perhaps are pushing for a nudes filter and not a nudes forum as the question surmises. i agree with Z. one, two. this is photo.net

john, you mistook my post as chastisement (i wrote 'ridiculous' in quotes being 'this' is the topic!), but i see now that you started a good thread re kudos to brian for stuff that works right and without fanfare

"...I suppose the "abuse@photo.net" service really is fast and accurate. Thank you for the well-done implementation of that idea..."

 

perhaps you should have taken a deep breath and notified abuse at the outset before starting this 'ridiculous' thread. and perhaps the least you should do now is to start a new thread with your statement above as the lead-in because it seems rather buried here

the answer to your question depends entirely on your purpose in presenting your photos on your website. that is up to you. whether they add meaning is up to the viewer. as a side note, you should not expect a narrative to add value because a clever fellow can make up a good story, and some can tell authentic stories better than others. the truly best photos are self expressing without a word. and that is as it should be

"...I take it you took note of the fact the person you refer to is NOT a paid member?..."

 

you mean to say that if that person was a paying member then his rating modus operendi would be considered legit??? this is why i applaud site policy to treat every member with equal respect according to an unflappable business policy standard and just give subscribers more goodies (but no more 'say' than the next member)

brian makes a good point. ironic that not once have i read any post pointing to the abuse dept of PN as a problem requiring site feedback redress. am i to conclude either that the abuse dept of PN works expeditiously, fairly, and nearly perfectly if not always satisfactorily to the complainant OR that most of the complaints made to this forum about ratings abuses do not get reported to abuse at PN and therefore are allowed to fester? case in point the user who goes by the moniker 'd s' -- http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1456641 -- who continues to shower high uniform ratings in a methodical but arbitrary and capricious manner in the ratings queue which makes a mockery of how an individual ought to rate photos. now will anyone report this to abuse at PN? dont look at me cuz i jus the messenger who folks say has no legit standing in PN as in 'dont post, dont rate'

if i may paraphrase what i was reminded in a past thread by giving yas the ol' one-two punchline:

 

this is not getting ridiculous because THIS IS PHOTO.NET

 

thank you, bailey 'Z' seals (re 'this is spinal tap')