Another Forum Bites The Dust

[RAZKY]

Facebook. The name is enough to scare me off! Too stupid for my likings.

 

[RAZKY]

BTW, what do you guys think of the forum PhotographyTalk? I tried to like it but its a bit quirky w/ small feedback. I just can't seem to be involved or accepted. Maybe it's just me.

Hah! It's ridiculous. Go to "Forums, Latest Posts," and what do you get? "Recent Topics." How stupid is that?? Two entirely different subjects. Their moderators do not appear to be very bright, but perhaps English is not their first language, so maybe I shouldn't be too critical. I comment occasionally, but of course don't expect many intelligent replies.

 

[smoke665]

@dolina as I mentioned earlier, once they went to a FB page, the number of postings went up substantially. I'm curious to see if that continues once the newness wears off.

As to FB censorship, they use a variety of AI algorithms to monitor traffic. It's not just nudity that gets you censored, things like war photos, rioting street shots, or any number of images the AI deems unsuitable, could get censored or at least "covered" requiring the viewer to click to uncover.

I'm not against FB or forums, I do believe there should be a difference in their direction as mentioned above (post #11). Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. In the case of Photography-forum, it appears that it was primarily death from boredom.

I am confused by your comment about 1 click vs multiple clicks in using links. I use Flickr (primarily because it links to LR), to share a link, click on the photo in Flickr, hit the share emblem, then BBCode, copy, paste in your post in TPF.

 

[dolina]

@smoke665

> as I mentioned earlier, once they went to a FB page, the number of postings went up substantially. I'm curious to see if that continues once the newness wears off.

I'd like to clarify are you talking about a FB page like say a "smoke665 Photo services" or FB personal profile?

If it's a FB personal profile then odds are people who follow or a contact of yours will engage with you so long as the subject matter is interesting to them.

Like say my FB personal profile. My contacts do not care about birds so my engagement with them is very low. If I join a FB group for bird photographers then my engagement skyrockets because they like birds.

> things like war photos, rioting street shots, or any number of images the AI deems unsuitable, could get censored or at least "covered" requiring the viewer to click to uncover.

In the 2-3 dozen photo forums I am registered at I have yet to see war & riot photos having its own section.

Many forum members do not actively produce or view them.

So the AI censorship isn't much of an issue or even a concern.

In other words I'd stop using Facebook if snuff photos/video were not filtered out.

I've actively reported parents who post photos of baby nudes on Facebook. They may find it normal in their household and that's their business but to post it on their Facebook wall should never be allowed.

Why? It's junk I do not want to look at.

Going to my original point... photo forums die when members stop participating.

 

[cgw]

They're difficult to contact for problem solving. I registered, but forgot to add a screen name. Once the ID was set, I couldn't go back and add one. I contacted them via the required folks, but never got a response. The site content was interesting enough to re-register, so I did. However, it looks as though the site could use a major refresh, more to do with site content, etc.

PN was Phil Greenspun. Once he sold it in 2007, the site steadily lost the smart, funny, generous community it attracted since the mid-90s. A string of snarky mods and dead-hand management created more problems than they solved. Seems populated now mostly by a cast of cranks, scolds and boors who split hairs and scuffle in the low-traffics forums.

 

[smoke665]

I'd like to clarify are you talking about a FB page like say a "smoke665 Photo services" or FB personal profile?

They went to a FB page

n the 2-3 dozen photo forums I am registered at I have yet to see war & riot photos having its own section

This was an example, and not intended as all inclusive. Anything that the AI detects as violent in nature could be subject to being covered.

 

[dolina]

This was an example, and not intended as all inclusive. Anything that the AI detects as violent in nature could be subject to being covered.

I dont want to see physical violence on my Facebook newsfeed.

Many other people do not want to see it either.

So what is the issue?

 

[smoke665]

I dont want to see physical violence on my Facebook newsfeed.

Many other people do not want to see it either.

So what is the issue?

The only issue is what you're trying to make of it. I merely stated that FB has rules regarding posts, same as most forums. My OP wasn't about FB or which was better, it was about the demise of a photography forum.

 

[dolina]

The only issue is what you're trying to make of it. I merely stated that FB has rules regarding posts, same as most forums. My OP wasn't about FB or which was better, it was about the demise of a photography forum.

Dude you made up so much extreme scenarios that I was wondering if you were younger than me.

 

[CherylL]

I've seen that happen with video editing forums that was once booming and now are ghost towns.

Facebook is for sharing photos with friends and family. I am on a few FB photography groups, but not for technical help. The groups are for meetups or someone looking for a 2nd shooter, or asking for areas of interest to shoot sessions.

The same for Flickr is a social site where this forum is for technical with a little social mixed in the coffee house.

 

[Photo Lady]

As long as this one stays.......

 

[dolina]

I've seen that happen with video editing forums that was once booming and now are ghost towns.

Video has a higher barrier to entry and is more time consuming than photos.

As such I think the early video editing forums gave budding professionals a leg up onto work in the video market.

As they're getting a lot of paid gigs they do not have time participate on any online forum.

 

[SquarePeg]

I like a mix of online forums like this one for discussion and photo sharing and Facebook groups. I’m in two different types of FB groups. Some are local with many people that I have met up with for photo outings and become friendly with. It’s nice to have people to shoot with when you feel like some company. The other end of that are the subject specific groups like Fuji X or Photoshop or Creative Macro. These are more about equipment and technique questions or when I want critique from people who don’t know me and have no qualms about being harsh because they have no interest in my feelings!

 

[SquarePeg]

To add - for subject specific groups I only join private groups that will not show my posts in my FB feed. I use my Facebook account more for personal connections with friends and family than for photo sharing.

 

[CherylL]

Video has a higher barrier to entry and is more time consuming than photos.

As such I think the early video editing forums gave budding professionals a leg up onto work in the video market.

As they're getting a lot of paid gigs they do not have time participate on any online forum.

There are professional video editing forums which are still strong (Creative Cow) There were many others geared to the hobbyist. People that needed help converting camcorder analog & HD video to digital. VHS tapes, mini VHS, mini DV & HD tapes. You had to know codecs and file formats. Then converting those files for upload on a platform (YouTube) or to DVD. Now with SD cards it goes straight to upload to your computer. The consumer video editing programs have easy "share to" buttons when you are done. Before you had to plug in all the numbers for 1 pass or 2 pass or keyframes, etc.

Vimeo in the early days was a community of hobbyists and artists. Now it is geared to the professionals. Sadly that sense of community has been lost.