I just read an entry that goes back to September 1998 "don't be rude." I have been into serious photography since 1958, and I learn new things every day. I am eager to hear other people's ideas and I would like them to consider my questions, no matter how "neurotic" or "stupid" they may sound. A few days ago I asked what I thought was a very legitimate question on photo.net Q&A Forum, I made an error in procedures, and, evidently, asked a question which did not meet with Mr. Phillip G's approval of what he considers to be legitimate questions (mind reading anyone?). My question was deleted for being "off topic," "Irrelevant," self-answering," and "stupid." At any rate, I went around with him for a few e-mail excahnges until I realized I did not want to be called "neurotic" or "stupid" any more!

My question is, who is this guy and what give him the right to proclaim himself "photo god" of the internet? Is it a PhD, personal wealth, or what?

I previously respected that web site and learned much from the exchanges, but now question its openness, flexibility, and respect for diversity of photographic interests, not to mention respect for differences in levels of photographic knowledge.

People can legitimately stray from stated policy, and, to my mind, should be gently guided back without being called names. My profession is elementary education, and we try to eliminate name calling by 4th grade! I guess some people are slow learners, or, simply, just mean. Does anyone have any advice regarding how to communicate within photo.net without being the target of ridicule?

Todd Frederick

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), April 23, 1999

Answers

First, I would like to thank Bob Atkins for contributing to this thread. This little forum has gone haywire from time to time, but I have no doubt that a busy day as moderator here is better than a slow day of moderating photo.net. If I wanted to run this forum as tightly as photo.net, I could. I mainly try to moderate out insults and other threads/posts that seem to be too far off topic to have any value here. I listed the rules for the forum when I created it, and as long as people who use it act like adults and don't stray too far from them I try not to be too heavy handed. Sometimes I am too lazy, and other times too busy to not be a little relaxed compared to photo.net.

Some remarks were made by the original poster about his question being put into the old threads area of photo.net. Bob can correct me if I am wrong, but regardless of categorization, this only happens when the question has been on the new list for a set amount of time (7 days here, not sure about photo.net). If you found it in one of the other categories, it was either old enough to just be there, or it was still in the new questions list as well. Questions will show up both places immediately. If you ask a question in any forum and it vanishes, that is a hint that it is not welcome there. I doesn't matter what your opinion of the situation is, it is up to the moderators of that forum. That is the whole idea of a moderated forum, and it is also one of the reasons why Philip provides not only free server space, but also software preinstalled on that server for people to start their own forums.

By the way Todd, you haven't told us either here or in our email exchange, what your original question was, or whether you ever got any answers to it. If it is about equipment, it will probably be welcome in this forum, and if it isn't, those of us who have responded to you would like to know, since I have decided to let this off topic thread remain. It may even help us shed some light on the situation in general.

-- Brad (bhutcheson@iname.com), April 26, 1999.

> My question is, who is this guy and what give him the right to > proclaim himself "photo god" of the internet? Is it a PhD, > personal wealth, or what?

Phil Greenspun owns the site. He runs it, maintains it, pays for the costs, receives its benefits, and edits it, which includes deleting questions which he decides to delete. We are his guests. Writing to this site is similar to writing to a magazine, in that the editor can choose to publish your letter or not. Although I don't know him, I am sorry that he called you names.

-- Hector Javkin (h.javkin@ieee.org), April 23, 1999.

Hektor,

Thank you for your resonse. Your answer is correct and what I expected..."he who owns the football controls the game!" I just find narrowmindedness and intolerance of diverse opinion very sad, especially in such an otherwise fine site as photo.net. Also, if I disagree with a "guest" in my house, I try to open discussion, rather than closing it through insult and name calling, and "deleting" my guest's welcome.

Todd

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), April 23, 1999.

It would be worth your while to dig around Philip's site and read many of the non-photo writings he has posted. His "Travels with Samantha" would be a good start. He is an extremely bright and complex individual based on what I have read. He is more "prickly" to deal with on occasion than I would like but don't be so quick to judge until you have dug deeper.

-- Peter Foiles (pfoiles@ibm.net), April 24, 1999.

"My question is, who is this guy and what give him the right to proclaim himself "photo god" of the internet? Is it a PhD, personal wealth, or what?"

Is that not name calling? Is retaliation by using name calling a good and intelligent response? BTW: I never read that Phil proclaim that he is a photo-God. Maybe you can point me to the site that says so?

-- A. Novisto (arief.novisto@vanderbilt.edu), April 24, 1999.

I can fully understand Todd's anger, for I had experienced similar treatment when I posted a question that fell short of photo.net's forum requirement. Although I was spared of any nasty names, the tone of delete notice was downright discourteous. However, I have no problem with that since it's equally understandable that Philip and his team of moderators can be a little short tempered when they're providing a useful free service out of their own time and money, and have the daunting task of maintain a forum accessed by hundreds, if not thousands, of internet users everyday to their editorial standards. I think it is only fair that any public objections and criticisms should be directed at the forum policy and not levelled at Philip himself. Photography should be fun; there's no need to get into web-rage.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), April 24, 1999.

Response From Todd:

You might say my use of "photo god" is also name calling, but I intentionally put that in quotation marks, did not say that this IS what he was, and couched it in the form of a question.

This is what happened: I asked a question on photo.net. The question was not place on the "new questions" board, but was put on the "Older questions" board under a category. I wanted it on the new board, so I wrote it again changing the category. Well, Mr. Greenspun didn't like the question and he didn't like me entering it twice and immediately e-mailed me with a delete notice referring to "spaming" (I still don't know what that means even though I asked him), and making reference to me as a "neurotic". I didn't even talk with him...that was the way he informes all people who break the rules. I then e-mailed him and asked him with all good intentions and politely if he would explain what I did wrong, and he personally e-mailed back referring to my "stupid neurotic" questions and never indicated what I did wrong or what I should do in the future. Some people just can't let a day go by without putting someone else down. My question on this forum is, "Is Mr. Greenspun one of those people or was he having a bad day?" I think his forum and classifieds are great, I like his policy of giving personal prints in exchange for charity contributions, his photos are great, and I enjoy his personal narratives. His response to my question, the deletion, and his e- mail attack was a bit of a surprise to say the least. That's all...I just want to know how to use photo.net in the future without sturring his fury!

Todd

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), April 24, 1999.

As a co-moderator of photo.net I can maybe give a little insight. The moderators have little time to spend on moderation and less answering email about it. For the poster, it's one question and one email. For the moderator it can be many questions and lots of email. I'm sure Philip gets a LOT more email than I do, and I can't keep up with all of it. People write to me with all sorts of questions, most of which I can't answer ("what should I buy") and all of which eat up my time. This isn't my job, it's supposed to be a hobby! I try to answer the ones I can. I assume for Philip it's even more time consuming.

So...no excuses, but sometimes my comments are short and may seem rude. It's basically we probably get tired of replying to (what amount to) the same questions and comments over and over again. To delete a question is a mouse click. To get into a discussion over it might take 10 minutes. No big deal for one, but multiply that by 25 and see how much of the day you have left.

I think it's pretty obvious from the questions that aren't deleted that there really isn't a lot of censorship on photo.net. It's not, and never was intended to be, a clone of the Usenet newsgroups (all things to all people, covering every aspect of every topic). It's suppose to be a bit more focused than that. If it fails, it fails by allowing too much, not by rejecting too much.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), April 24, 1999.

>> I...question its openness, flexibility, and respect for diversity of photographic interests.

Remember also that photo.net Q&A has clear objectives, which don't actually cover openness etc. There are other forums with other objectives, moderated by other people. If you want, you can even set up your own forum, with whatever objectives you decide.

I would personally prefer photo.net to be more strictly moderated, to be more 'focused'. However, I now know that this is not as easy as it sounds, and the moderators of photo.net have my full sympathy for their difficult self-imposed task.

But I suppose I would add that some people could learn a thing or two about common courtesy.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), April 26, 1999.

about "This is what happened: I asked a question on photo.net. The question was not place on the "new questions" board, but was put on the "Older questions" board under a category. I wanted it on the new board, so I wrote it again changing the category."

here's some technical tips. it's all one "board". (as much as phillip probably wouldn't want it called that) the "new questions" are just ones that haven't been catagorized yet. apparently your question was easy to catagorize so it was (probably by you). i guess for people too lazy or shortsighted to scroll down a page or two, the "new questions" are all they see, so being catagorized is a bad thing, but for the rest of us, catagorization is a good thing. that way i can ignore all the equipment quesitons if i want to. "new" or otherwise.

since it's all one area (i can't call it a board anymore, it's too painful) posting it two times is only going to make things worse.

all questions that get answered appear in the "new answers" filter. use it. instead of re-posting the question again and again to put it at the top of the list.

----------

about "Does anyone have any advice regarding how to communicate within photo.net without being the target of ridicule?"

sure! all you have to do is ask questions that follows the (admitedly strict) topic rules. i'vve done it half a dozen times. you apparently asked an off topic question (probably about equipment) and those aren't allowed. then you come here (where equipment questions ARE allowed) and ask ANOTHER OFF TOPIC QUESTION. it is true that the moderation is less active here, so you're off topic questions last longer, but you still have yet to post an ON TOPIC question. maybe you should post your original question to photo.net here??? it would at least be on topic.

what's so hard to understand about off-topic? if you're talking about "bears" in your 4th grade class today and one of your 4th graders asks a question about the politics of the late 18th century are you going to discuss it? i doubt it. it's not a 4th grade topic., and it's definately not about today's topic of "bears". you might guide him to some other sources of information (which is what photo.net sometimes does) but you probably won't take class time to discuss it. what if he askes it again? and again? and again? (it is a valid and compelling question afterall) then asks why you refuse to answer his question? then argues with your answer about why you don't answer his question? then goes next door to some other unsuspecting classroom and whines to them about how his teacher won't answer his question? you'll eventually have had enough of it.

if the people at photo.net won't answer your question, ask it somewhere else.

photo.net is much more like college level schooling, rather then grade/public schooling. each class has a very strictly defined topic and a very smart, very busy, very impatient teacher trying to teach it. they'd probably much rather be doing whatever activity they're teaching, but they're taking time out of their day to teach you. at least you could stick to the topic they came to discuss. there's no time for off-topic discussions. it makes so mcuh sense to me.

--------

P.S. "spam" is unwanted e-mail. "spamming" is the repeated sending of "spam". apparently phillip figured (sarcastically) that since you sent the same (unwanted) message two times you were "spamming" photo.net.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 26, 1999.

Response to Brad:

I am responding to Brad's request stated above to shed some light on my original question to Q&A that was deleted, and why I started this exchange of opinion on this site and photo.net.

First, I am not a new photographer. I am a new net user. That's the problem. I've probably been doing photography longer than many of you have been alive...although I'm not quite that old! I just don't always understand all of the web protocols. That becomes a problem, but I'm sure I'm not alone. New web users make honest mistakes.

Second, the question I asked did not regard equipment as such, but was a question regarding info Oly Epic focus problems. I wanted advice on what I was to avoid to insure good focus, based on what I had read from others. I have used cameras from 4X5 to my present M6, but point and shoots are sometimes beyond me due to lack of controls. I sincerely sought suggestions on the use of this nice little camera, but, perhaps, it was not phrased to Mr. G's liking.

Third, and this has been misunderstood by responses regarding this on both sites, I am NOT angry about being deleted. I am hurt by Mr. G's insults when I asked how I could learn to provide questions that were acceptable. He called me "neurotic" (seems to be a favorite, though psychologically outdated, term he like to use) and "stupid". That is hurtful and does not promote learning.

Fourth, I realize that my question to this site was not on topic, intentionally, but had to be asked: "how do we learn..." if the moderators do not help us or are so arrogant toward us that all we warrant are insults.

I appreciate you keeping this on the site...evidently my inquiry has aroused considerable interest, and I can only hope that some changes may result which will help newcomers to photo.net learn better how to use the system.

Respectfully,

Todd Frederick

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), April 26, 1999.

Good ways not to get slammed are to 1) insert evidence into your post that you have performed a photo.net search, 2) carefully word your question being sure to state the photographic objective 3)avoid like the plague any question asking which is the "best" film, paper, chemical, lens or body.

I've been whacked by Bob and Phil and I didn't like it either. I got over it and have continued to learn from photo.net. They can be prickily cusses, but hey, they admit it and don't claim to be perfect.

There is an old quote about not judging someone until you have walked in their moccasins for two moons. We should all try to keep this is mind.

-- Chris Hawkins (peace@clover.net), April 27, 1999.

Well, it may be of interest to know that I've even gone so far as to delete my own questions, when, on reflection, I thought they didn't belong on photo.net or I found my answer by doing a bit of work on my own with a web search engine! You can't get much stricter than that.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), April 27, 1999.

Doubt I'll contribute too much new to this, but I'll try to re-emphasize some points:

- These (photo.net and all it's little children)are NOT public forums - they're a privately-owned, publicly-accessible database. We ARE guests here; I think that too many people are too used to Usenet and it's air of anarchy that, when confronted with a more 'refined' forum, they either don't notice or expect that Usenet etiquette applies.

- The moderators of these sites ARE heavily over-worked/under-appreciated for the work they contribute (I doubt many of us understand the volume of hits and email these sites generate in a day's time).

- Contributors to these sites simultaneously have the capacity to be extremely forgiving and extremely crass. They get tired of hearing some questions over and over, and trip sometimes. I agree that, ideally, everyone'd treat each other with a measure of respect, or at the least, consideration. That doesn't always happen (if you think there's a little good in everybody, you haven't met everybody). I DO think that there are days when some contributors (including myself) should turn their computers off and go back to bed. If I notice someone asking a question that's been covered many times, or who may not be aware of typical procedure, and if I have the time, I'll try to give them some direction, either through posting or private email. Might be nicer for newcomers if everyone did that.

- Photo.net et al require some experience. It took me a while in lurking before I felt confident enough to post anything (though, that's my nature - others jump right in). I personally think that there's often a need for additional functionality in this system, but as PG is the one doing the work (which I haven't put the effort in to learn), and as he's doing this for HIS reasons and not mine, I don't generally tax him further with my input. I haven't looked for any sort of FAQ list, but if there isn't one, maybe one of us who feels comfortable in the goings-on here should take the time to contribute one to the static content.

It's a great place to learn; it (unfortunately) requires occassionally thick skin. I think receiving a barrage of terse commentary in our inbox is a sort-of rite of passage here...

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Response to Todd:

"How ... can we learn???"

Well, as always in life by exploring the limits=rules. As a newbee I was so exited about the discovery of photo.net that I blasted out my question without noticing the rules.

Response: ...Your thread has been deleted. This has been discussed over and over. Search the archives.

That was it. So I surfed photo.net up and down, back and forth for a while before I placed my next question. This time it was a success. I can unserstand that a moderator gets sick to reply for the 3456th time that a $ 100 zoom can't be better than a $ 1000 manufactures lens and gets upset. But especially a educational instructor (or professor) shouldn't be carried away! That's not good.

I, for my part, learned a lot about photography on photo.net. I was exposed to a whole new world evenso I was into photography for some time.

One thing I've noticed during the 2 years in the photo.net community though, is that some members are getting too emotional!!! This in a positive and negative sense. Negative in so far that they use this relativly "un-personal" electronic medium to "spit-out" verbal waste not even recognizing that they are hurting "real" people and not an e- mail with their form of response. Some seem to be very knowledgeable and artistic in their "written" appearance, but probably base their knowledge on a couple of books only. Some truely seem to know the photo stuff, others are seemingly here because they have nothing else to do. Others even don't bother with capitals, breaks, grammar etc. while typing. I certainly don't enjoy that.

My granddad always used to say: "Son, there are no stupid questions in life, only stupid answers !!!"

So, next time you boys and you few girls out there think about this before you write a reply and call somebody names....

Now back to asking questions, some of my questions still have been deleted. Most of them were related to topic which have been beaten to death in the past. But I (felt I) had asked additional questions. Sometimes those topics were 2 years old and equipment or features have been changed or up-graded in the meantime. - Bad luck. I need to live with it. No hard feelings towards anybody, as long as the tone stays friendly.

Everbody: Thanks for all photo.net sites, I will enjoy them also in the feature. Just- People, watch your temper, you are not alone in the world....

-- Marcus Erne (mcerne@evansville.net), April 29, 1999.

Sorry, for some reason my "old" cookie was still active here is my real address.

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), April 29, 1999.