Well, I believe that LuLa is whatever Michael chooses it to be, but within the limits of his control, which because of the public participation cannot be total. Unless, of course, he introduces some censorship device - surely, not Schewe?
I also believe that it is a genuine resource for those of us interested in photography beyond a very basic level. There is much advice/information available here if you choose to search it out.
However, I wonder if that was part of the meaning within OPīs post; if he is referring to the conversational side of LuLa, the exchange of ideas amongst fellow photographers, then he might just have a point. My own experience here over recent years has not always been smooth, and any farting within the hostīs domain has, unfortunartely, been inhaled by yours truly too. I have found myself victim of several instances of idiot-posting, where my statements have either been wilfully misunderstood or, worse, they have not even been fully read before the attacking reply leaps into print. I have not noticed any censorship coming into play at such times, though I would have welcomed it. However, the lack of it there has not prevented it (censorship) from cutting dead other threads which were possibly heading towards bitter confrontation - a futile stance vis a vis a computer at the best of times: itīs only a bloody machine with God alone knows who tickling the keys.
Boring. Well, thatīs really up to the people who post here: some people have much of value to say whilst others do not, but say it anyway. Perhaps the problem is a lack of humour? There are precious few literary gems floating about the place - there is sometimes a lot of anger; there are many who are delighted to fill the various picture areas of the site with pictures, some good and others, frankly, awful; but is that just opinion saying they are awful or is it a basic truth obvious to all but their author and the blind? From that, can we deduce that LuLa needs a picture editor? I would imaging so, but who would that be and how would he be paid?
Some respected professionals post here and some show pictures. Others reserve that pleasure to their site, a wiser choice, I would say. The feeling sometimes comes over me that LuLa is being used, probably unoffically, by some of these pros - mainly those engaged in what I suppose is the teaching side of being a pro (a paradox?) - as a personal advertising space. Not sure I like that a whole lot...
I donīt really see that Michael can be expected to contribute more material of his own in the way of written reports and so forth: writing may be one of oneīs skills, but it still consumes a lot of time and his calendar is already pretty full, as has been outlined in this thread. So what is expected of him? I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested in following the latest equipment trail; I have a reasonable camera (D200) and for my needs as a retired pro, it serves perfectly well. I have an F3 which is looked at every now and again as is the freezer full of transparency films, but each time I look within the frozen wastes I think in terms of 8 a pop to get the damn things processed, if anyone can still do that for me now. I close the freezer. I take another digital photograph. Nothing in life is ever perfect because perfection means something different for every individual; I think LuLa is as good as it gets for a site not exclusively loaded towards pro photographers. Such a site might be desirable, but do they work? There is confusion in thinking that pros are more interesting than amateurs or, for that matter, always better. Some very talented amateurs are already posting here, their work amateur simply because they choose not to be dependent on photography for a living. (Wise choice!)
How to sum it up?
Enjoy it for what it is and be grateful that it exists.