amysn

Lauren -

I too get those stock tips to my personal account (not photo.net), but, I was getting, every day, spam sent to my photo.net account that used funny, Asian looking characters (font). I finally changed my photo net email to one with my name and a bunch of numbers - I was guessing that the spammers were just guessing at email addresses (common name @ photo.net). Once I added the numbers, the spam has stopped!

 

As for writing to photo.net, over this past week I've written four emails regarding a related issue and have not had one reply. Troubling.

Thanks. I've tried logging in with my old user name, and variations that I can think of, but it says "user not found" or something to that affect. So, the system is not recognizing me. :-(

I seem to be locked out of my photo.net account (I had to re-register as a new

user to be able to post here). I've sent three emails to photo.net, but they've

not responded, I suppose because I'm not showing up as a paid subscriber (they

claim to not read non-subscriber email very often). (I am a paid subscriber, on

my real account.)

 

Can someone help me reclaim my old (real) account? I may have mistakenly changed

my log in email address (in an attempt to stop getting spam mail that was

forwarded to me through my photo.net email). But I have no record of the change,

and was never sent a change confirmation by photo.net.

 

Any moderators out there who can contact admin and get them to respond? It is

much appreciated. Thanks, Amy

<div></div>

Not sure if anyone is still reading this old post - but - I may have figured out what's going on. (As it just happened again.) If, while in the rate-recent view, I click in the comment field (not sure how/why this happens, but easy to imagine) and I then hit the space bar (I often hit the bar to scroll down the page), a space is inserted; this counts as a comment.

 

Also, I now see how easy it is to forget photos that I have seen! Of course, photos that I have really commented on I tend not to forget, but those that I just rate and move past, may be forgotten.

 

Case closed, at least for me.

Thanks all for responses. So, it's sounds like a tight fitting compartment is not necessary, just a bit of padding, right? (Maybe some water-proofing too.) I did look at the Crumplers - very nice, but from what I've seen they are either non-camera bags, or camera bags only, not a combo in a shoulder bag. Manhattan Portage has some very nice looking bags, but didn't see any with padding or with compartments for cameras.

I have a smallish camera - Canon 350D with zoom lens and want to keep

it with me as I go about my day - out and around my neck sometimes,

other times put away, safe and protected in the bag. But I don't also

want to carry a purse/day bag. I would like a camera bag that doesn't

look like a camera bag and that has room for other things - a wallet

and such. I'd prefer a shoulder bag, not a backpack. I've been

looking, but all camera bags I've seen are that (a camera bag) and

that only.

 

Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks.

Thanks Brian.

Thanks for the support guys.

 

I wonder why so many people jumped to the rule issue, when there are other solutions, e.g., if over a certain height, automatically reduce but include the larger button, which, as I recall, is what I originally proposed. Seems fair enough to me, no rules, only more viewing options for all. What a happy and peaceful world it might be. But, as others have said, I too am done with this issue.

Well now - Pierre, thanks for the advance, but I don't appreciate your "bitching" comment - really. By the way, I thank you for the advice, but I am using Firefox and it does not work - resizes text only. Opera on a Mac? I'll look into it.

 

I thought this forum was a place for suggestions on how to improve PN - and that's what I was attempting. I don't comprehend illogical arguments - and I was only referring to the last post as a way of pointing out the contradictions. I am not obsessed - I assure you. Sorry if it's coming off that way (apparently so). Those who are emotionally plugged in are those cursing and telling me to chill - geez. If I have any more suggestions (for this wonderful but very confusing and poorly arranged site), shall I keep them to myslef? (Sorry, perhaps it the instructional designer in me speaking now.)

 

My point was not to sugggest a vertical height rule, but to note that people do no know (contrary to last thread); there are ways to gently remind/inform people. Even the most obvious must sometimes be stated.

 

P.S. - a lesson in the art of discussion and manners: no name calling, no generalizations about the person (obsessing, bitching, need a deep breath). Let' stick to the issue, no?

Slow down? Take a deep breath? (Are you for real?) This issue bothers me, but not that much, really. Anyway, I do think it ruins an image to have to scroll (sense of composition is lost, for one) and the others (people who wanted new rules and those who did not) seemed to agree with me. The ones that did not want to implement a new rule thought, basically, "tough on the photographer - no one will look at their photos." I think I'll pour myself a stiff drink...

I posted this request a week or back - that photos be limited in

vertical height, same as they are in horizontal width. The concensus

from photo.net (with a few dissenters, me included at times) was that

we do not need any more rules. They (you?) said to ignore such photos

- the photographer should understand not to post a photo for computer

display that is too large to display on a computer! (Made sense to

me.) But the PHOTO OF THE WEEK is such a photo! Obviously, people are

not ignoring these photos. I don't think it's my computer (Powerbook

15 inch set to max resolution). Argh.

Thanks Brian. Makes sense.

I am always confused by these categories - but my main issue in this

post is: "Where's my photo?" If I search in Rate Recent Avg. for 24

hour period, at present, it is the first photo on page two (Me

Shooting Me, MACBA). If I search by Average, it does not appear (I

went about 20 or more pages in, to numbers far below its rating).

Also, the photo is listed as having 0 views, even though it has six

anonymous ratings and two direct ratings. Very confusing! Ideas? Thanks,

Amy

P.S. - Thanks Phong! (For the comment, that is, not for the no-comment.) :-)

Yes. I like that idea.

Yes - and I don't recall my name... who am I? But really, I can understand not recalling seeing a photo, even, perhaps one commented on. So, that does not really prove anything. But - and here's the clincher - why would I enter nothing, AND CONFIRM? That coupled with no recollection of seeing th photos is suspicious.

Wow - have never seen that photo as well. (Nice photo, by the way!) Odd indeed. Anyone know what's up?

Here it is: http://www.photo.net/photo/3575611

Last night I was looking at my "follow-up on photo comments" list and

noticed a new photo listed. I had only checked the list the day before

and recognized this as new. I clicked to view the photo, but it was a

photo I had never seen before, with a caption I'd never read before

(unique, so I would have remembered). My name appeared as posting a

comment on July 26 - but there was no comment, only my name (as if I

had posted nothing). (Highly unlikely since it takes a confirmation to

post, and of course, because I'd not seen the photo.) Very odd.

Sorry - thought this was done, but just realized: what's the deal with then "larger?" I thought that was so that people wouldn't post files over a certain physical size. Is that only for width and not height?

Sorry - thought this was done, but just realized: what's the deal with then "larger?" I thought that was so that people wouldn't post files over a certain physical size. Is that only for width and not height?

Thanks Tim! I agree with your assessment about there being too many rules, and I think you guys are right. And, I have been leaving comments on tall photos, but had never seen anyone else comment, so posted to get a sense of other people's sense of the issue. I will continue to do so.

Hmmm. I see your point. Then how about "no licking the cieling?" (in honor of your daughter). Well, point taken - perhaps then just guidelines somewhere. But, you are correct, should not need to request or require.

Thanks Brian. (Just happened again...could not see entire photo, could not rate.) I realize I am requesting extra work for PN, so, if that is too much, perhaps a simple but conspicuous note, displayed on the upload photos page, and elsewhere. Much appreciation. - Amy