I was one of the early posters on LL. In the year 2000 there was no requirement for membership. Anyone could express his/her opinion without going through the hassles of registration.
Those were the good old days.
Epson is to blame for my getting involved in LL. I'd bought the latest and greatest Epson printer in late 2000, the A3+ Epson Stylus 1200 which was one of the first desktop inkjets to produce true photographic quality prints, as opposed to 'near' photographic quality.
Disappointingly, my prints came out too dark and totally unacceptable. I rang the Epson agent in Sydney (or was it Melbourne) to ask for advice, and was told that color management was a very complicated affair and that I should consult a few websites on the internet. Two that I remember that were recommended were Luminous Landscape and Ian Lyons's Computer-Darkroom. There was perhaps a third which I can't recall.
Luminous landscape was not only well organised with insightful reviews, particularly of the then current Canon D30, but Michael's landscape images seemed to me to be rather special. They had a certain quality that placed them above most landscape shots that I'd previously seen.
I was also new to the computer experience, the internet, and the potential of communication with complete strangers who shared a common interest.
I suppose one could say I became hooked, hence my 7,000 posts on this site.
It'll be interesting to see what the new site offers, apart from bells & whistles. I can't really fault the current arrangements. If you insist on being an ignoramus, you can already place someone on 'ignore'. This protects you from any uncomfortable ideas.
The 2MB limit on downloadable jpegs is already plenty. Who would want to make available publicly a jpeg compression that exceeds 2MB that could be pirated for other purposes?
As I see it, there's nothing wrong with the current format of the site. What's wrong is the small-minded, petty complaints and criticisms of some of the posters. But that's life! We have to accommodate such people.