Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Fritzer on April 22, 2006, 01:20:11 am
-
It's official, the RG fora will be for paying customers only, non-subscribers won't even be allowed to read .
The wealth of knowledge in the archives, contributed by generous pros, has been part of the deal.
Read the forum FAQ (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=421065&an=0&page=0#421065) for details....
You be the judge, can a message board, which is run unlike any other lively and successful internet community, be of any future interest ?
-
I'm more than irritated that they see the old content as an asset and will start charging for it too. This input was given for free from former members on a free forum and now it should be sold as a product? Strange ethics...
-
I'm more than irritated that they see the old content as an asset and will start charging for it too. This input was given for free from former members on a free forum and now it should be sold as a product? Strange ethics...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But once you start to read the old successful threads on the MF forum where some of the experienced and popular members like JRussell, MTucker and others participated, it is now like walking across a graveyard or even worse, all their postings are made anonymous and say "Former member, account closed". They leave the information but won't even tell who gave it for free. It is a shame really.
RG and his moderator were - being the owners - free to procede as they liked to, but I actually think that this was a big mistake.
The contributors was the real value to RG, and by treating some of them like a teacher would treat a "bad pupuil", they litterally chased them away, it doesn't surprise me that this all came to an end quickly.
I personally won't pay for the forum in the future.
regards, Bernie
-
...it is now like walking across a graveyard or even worse, all their postings are made anonymous and say "Former member, account closed". They leave the information but won't even tell who gave it for free. It is a shame really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps the new forum owner should look at rectifying those anonymous postings?
How much weight will be given to lots of anonymous comments by those considering paying for access once their trial period elapses? Does knowing the identity (and industry/professional standing) of the various users impact on the authority of their statements?
Particularly from the new financial viewpoint of the relaunched RG forums, you'd think they would want to maximise their 'asset value'?
-
deleted
-
Perhaps the new forum owner should look at rectifying those anonymous postings?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whether he does or not (I wont read it then because I will not pay, I must say that I did not like the censorhip and the way the change was handled), the real pity is that the forum as it existed for months is now gone. Many posters who made the attractivity of RG MF forum will not go back there.
A lot of non - posters (like myself) but even several of the regular posters that had to - or chose to - leave said that it was a very special place that is not easy to rebuild somewhere else on another site.
Hopefully there will be similar places in the future.
Bernie
-
Perhaps the new forum owner should look at rectifying those anonymous postings?
How much weight will be given to lots of anonymous comments by those considering paying for access once their trial period elapses? Does knowing the identity (and industry/professional standing) of the various users impact on the authority of their statements?
Particularly from the new financial viewpoint of the relaunched RG forums, you'd think they would want to maximise their 'asset value'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Everyone agreed it was Rob and Mike's house and they could paint it any color they wish.
The problem is they painted it pink and yellow and then put it on the market.
In reality, what is the worth of that forum now to a new member, even at a nominal fee of $25?
It just becomes a club of like minded individuals which loses the benefit of open, thought provoking discussion.
Not to be negative, but I personally think the damage is done and the value of that forum is highly diminished.
I thought about writing and asking if they could delete all of my posts, but thinking about it now, once they move to a locked down pay for view model, it will probably have the same effect.
There was a lot of talk about advertisers pressure and as I have stated, none of us know if that was true.
Still, it's a loss to the manufacturers not to have that type of open, passionate and sometimes heated discussions, because that form of opinion backed by experience can quickly bring out the positives and negatives of the tools and methods we use.
The manufacturers may not have liked some of the public comments, but I bet they read every one of them.
IMO
JR
-
I just posted the following question for Drew and it will be interesting to see what his answer is. Note that just last week if I had posted this question I would have been banned:
RE: Amnesty for banned members
Dear Drew,
My one question is will all the people who were banned in the last couple of months including but not limited to James Russell and Mark Tucker be invited back? (...)
My personal feeling is the RG forum will not be the same without the contributions of those who left. This seems like a good point in time to clean the slate and invite the old crowd back. My joining will be based on the answer to this question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Roland, as far as I know JamesR. left by himself, only M.Tu. seems to have been banned. However as far as I have seen, he and Mark are friends, and I'd not want to stay in a forum where a friend is banned in a "school boy" manner, and not either want to be offered an "amnesty". Jesus, those people participated greatly to the value of this community, why should they need an amnesty to give their information for free?
Also I doubt that a normal adult person who hasn't made stupid mistakes would go back to such a place. I wouldn't and I dont expect M.T. and J.R. and Guy Manusco, and a few others to do so. Except of course if the present owner of the forum changes the policy that the past contents (given away for free of course) are not readable for non-subscribers and maybe contacts those members in a very polite, decent and tactful way by making clear that he follows a different style. However the first deletions on the new forum dont point in this direction.
Unfortunately!
regards, Bernie
-
deleted.
-
Roland,
Yes, the new owner will have to handle this. I won't comment more on this, because I haven't really been part of the active posters on RobG forum, so I am only indirectly concerned. However I hope that the people who were on this forum find a way to go on with their very educating debate and discussion. Maybe they will find/ create a new place as has been suggested by someone already.
I just was one of the silent readers of RG who - probably much like me - followed the discussions on the MF board regulary and with great interest, as there was so much to learn (for free) about new digital technology and the photographic business in general. Quite a change from dpreview where the usual noise dominates.
regards, bernie
-
Does anyone of the currently homeless Rob Galbraith contributors know Q.-Tuan Luongs largeformat forum at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/ (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/) ?
It is of course only interesting if you use LF cameras and shoot film but it shows exemplary how a non-commercial successor of the RG forum could look like.
Personally I would very much prefer to make donations for such a project instead of subscribing to the new RG forum.
-
I have suggested setting up a new MF oriented forum
I have experimentally set this up on www.smartgroups.com
I have called this group "d64 group" with reference to the f64 group of the last century.
This is an unmoderated group and currently invitation only We can discuss later whether we should make it more open. If we keep it closed then we can talk more freely about inside / industry knowledge than if it was searchable by google. But its a matter we can discuss.
Members can invite new members who they know are interested in MF digital.
As it is unmoderated it will rely on the membership to keep it basically on track and about MF digital. If its quality is good, then it will attract good posters. So it sinks or swims by self moderation. No idea if it will work.
Also, if another forum emerges which is better, no problem, we can gravitate there.
To join it please email me at
paul AT architecturalimages DOT co DOT uk
(replacing the words by punctuation of course)
I will then send you an invitation (5 already invited).
I am out shooting for the next 2 days, so it may take a couple of days to get started, then we should be in business.
This will be a co-op group. And won't be the property of a single member.
-
deleted.
-
deleted.
-
1) All formerly banned users are invited back by the new owner
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63401\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
News to me (no one has contacted me from the site). Being a "banned user" I have no way to communicate with the new people there (I can't find an email). I did a search(about the only thing you can do as a non "member) and find that I had posted 2543 posts. I'm not at all happy about the new owners referencing these posts to people who pay for this new site. Even if I was invited back (that's a BIG if), I'm not sure I would go back and I would demand all my old posts be removed since I'm just against the idea that info I freely posted is now only accessible to paid members. This just rubs me the wrong way.
I have no record of the original terms of use but I'd be surprised if there was anything that said RG owns what I wrote. Or he could transfer those posts to someone who is essentially selling them to make their own profit.
Considering photography and copyright issues, I'm actually shocked that these new owners would even consider such a move but maybe they are green about how professional photographers make a living (we sell usage of images, not the images themselves) and copyright is key to this.
Invite me back. OK maybe. But sell the archives; that's a deal breaker.
-
I aslo posted this regarding the content issue:
Just to float an idea... Scientific journals have been having the same financing issues lately due to the Internet. The solution that they came up with finally was to have subscribers pay for content for a set period of time, say going back one year. All previous content beyond that period of time, over one year old for example was then incrementally released for free on the Internet for all to access. So if you want to stay current and add to the discussion you support the journals. But the data and intellectual ideas stay open to the public as intended by the contributors around the world. The price paid for the service is the cost of being behind the times by a set period of time. This model has kept the major scientific journals from going insolvent. It has kept intellectual property intended to be open open. For the most part it is a solution that has worked.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Roland,
I have seen your post, but unfortunately can't post a reply at RG's, being banned and all ...
I have to disagree with your comparison, online magazines, and even more so scientific ones, take a very different approach to communicating knowledge than a message board does, imho.
An internet forum gains its value solely by member contribution, be it day-to-day postings or searchable archives.
Take away even only one of those, and you get an incestuous coffee klatch.
It has been mentioned before, restricting (read) access to a forum also isolates it from the rest of the internet , as noone can link or otherwise refer to the content of such an insular community.
I'm quite familiar with online fora, as moderator, former owner and dedicated user, the issue of a forum with high traffic volume running out of funds for bandwidth isn't uncommon.
There are several ways this issue is normally dealt with:
- Sponsors, who can run their own sub-forum - which doesn't necessarily lead to censorship; or who are allowed to run ads and such in a sales forum.
- Ads, didn't seem to work for RG.
- A call for voluntary donations. Trust me , in a really popular forum this works almost every time, when the alternative is a close-down. Should have been a great success in a forum frequented by a comparably wealthy audience .
The expenditure of time can be minimized by appointing voluntary moderators, shouldn't be much of an issue to find people ready to oversee a crowd as low-maintenance as on RG's.
However, it was decided to make a quick buck by selling the archive and possible 'high-tier' member base - or what remained of it after the recent cleansings - to the next best buyer.
Time will tell if the formerly high standards can be retained, and if the precious members from the industry will find it worthwhile to further contribute in such a restricted group.
-
deleted.
-
Plain and simple, that circus has left town. It was wonderful while it was here, but what now? Maybe someday another circus will come.
We can waste our collective energies trying to convince the new owners to see things our way or better yet focus our efforts into creating something new that serves our purpose. I applaud Paul for taking steps toward this direction.
I don't mean to make this sound "rah rah" (toss a cheerleader up into the air, anyone?) but think of this analogy:
If the MF Forum at RG was like a group of friends sitting around a table in a cafe having a drink then why can't we simply move the party on to the next cafe?
Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"
Mark Tuttle
-
News to me (no one has contacted me from the site). Being a "banned user" I have no way to communicate with the new people there (I can't find an email). I did a search(about the only thing you can do as a non "member) and find that I had posted 2543 posts. I'm not at all happy about the new owners referencing these posts to people who pay for this new site. Even if I was invited back (that's a BIG if), I'm not sure I would go back and I would demand all my old posts be removed since I'm just against the idea that info I freely posted is now only accessible to paid members. This just rubs me the wrong way.
I have no record of the original terms of use but I'd be surprised if there was anything that said RG owns what I wrote. Or he could transfer those posts to someone who is essentially selling them to make their own profit.
Considering photography and copyright issues, I'm actually shocked that these new owners would even consider such a move but maybe they are green about how professional photographers make a living (we sell usage of images, not the images themselves) and copyright is key to this.
Invite me back. OK maybe. But sell the archives; that's a deal breaker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because of people like you being banned--I am not sure I would find the forums of any value. If you (and others) don't go back (and I'm assuming not--to be truthful), then---I won't either. I'm sure others feel the same. I spent time in the RAW, color mgt., PS forums more than the 1D---5D forums (where I could find similar info elsewhere)--and I admit to being a 'voyeur' on the MF forum where I learned a lot.
I'm planning to wait and see how the forum works out. For now, I've found other places to find what I want for the most part though it takes more time.
Archives--I have strong reservations about them.
Diane
-
If the MF Forum at RG was like a group of friends sitting around a table in a cafe having a drink then why can't we simply move the party on to the next cafe?
Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"
Mark Tuttle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that things are well on their way to having this place be the next cafe. I'll buy a pitcher if anyone's willing to stick around.
-
I think that things are well on their way to having this place be the next cafe. I'll buy a pitcher if anyone's willing to stick around.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Happy to contribute $25 to the tab, since I don't plan on spending it at the redecorated RG bar.
Steven
-
Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"
Cool ... I absolutely agree.
-
Considering photography and copyright issues, I'm actually shocked that these new owners would even consider such a move but maybe they are green about how professional photographers make a living (we sell usage of images, not the images themselves) and copyright is key to this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Considering that people like Andrew and others make their living from teaching and writing, there arises an interesting IP issue with posts on public forums being sold, not to mention the fact that the owners of the information in those posts being locked out and can no longer reference their own comments.
Put simply "You own your words" and selling those words without the permission of the owner is a simple breach of IP, which we as photographers take very seriously.
Are there published terms and conditions on the RG site - I never saw any but I am happy to be corrected. If not then the new owners should tread carefully.
-
With all due respect, but we should all cut the IP crap. For all we know the website could be run from China, in which case I wish anyone good luck with no matter how many US (or Ozzie) authorneys. If you offer any kind of information to the internet, you have to accept that it can, and most likely will, become public domain.
Your protection results from the fact that the value of information is inversely proportional to its speed. Considering the timeframe of internet information, there really is no informational value in your previous posts. If you really think there is any value, I would like to present exhibit A: the countless times I've seen the "experts" answer the same old questions over and over again.
In fact, that is probably what makes them experts to begin with; the fact that they have the patience to do so...
Considering that people like Andrew and others make their living from teaching and writing, there arises an interesting IP issue with posts on public forums being sold,
-
Speaking for myself, I've written enough on photographic forums to fill a number of books. But much of the stuff I've written is ill-informed and incorrect. I'd like to collect all that stuff as a record of my photographic development, but I'm not going to insist that it remain on archive as a valuable source of information.
I've thought about doing a search on all my posts, in this forum and Rob Galbraith's, and printing the results, but I haven't done so yet. I tend to think it would be an exercise in vanity.
-
Speaking of pitchers.
I am willing to donate domain name, hosting space, bandwidth, forum setup services and technical support for the idea of a new, professional, digital medium format forum.
Being one of the big klients of an hosting company/i own a web design company/, i have access to significant ammounts of free hosting space and bandwidth, also i'm qiute familiar with setting up, administration and moderation options of Invision and PhpBB forum boards. The team of programmers in my office should back me up in case of trouble.
If you guys think that is a good idea - i'm ready to kick it off. It will be a good idea to act now, while people are still searching for separate suitable space for MF specific discussions. Gathering them together will be more difficult with every passing day.
p.s.
I hope that this offer does not violate LL forum rules...
p.p.s.
Being a moderator/administrator of an big, free, art oriented forum, listing about 6000 active members - i'm aware that such a forum will require significant efforts and time on my part, but i'm prepared to face them.
-
With all due respect, but we should all cut the IP crap. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Relax.
No-one is suggesting suing anyone and of course from a practial perspective it would be foolish to even contemplate such a course of action.
OTOH, IP is hardly 'crap' as you so bluntly put it. It is a fundamental part of the creative industy's business model and has been fought for long and hard.
RG is based in Canada. Canada has stringent IP laws like the US and Europe and any violation of them needs to be brought into the open so people can be made aware of what is happening so they can make an informed decision about the situation.
-
RG is based in Canada. Canada has stringent IP laws like the US and Europe and any violation of them needs to be brought into the open so people can be made aware of what is happening so they can make an informed decision about the situation.
Fair enough, and I may have stated it somewhat more harshly than necessary, but providing information to the internet, especially in the form of answers to questions, is not protectable by law in a genetic sense. Trying to make laws to do so, or trying to apply existing laws, is equivalent to killing oneself (as a society).
Instead you should (simply) increase the speed of expansion. That is, believe in our ability to keep creating, more and more, preferrably in consistent form. You either believe in your ability to create, or you believe in your ability to protect. The latter is the surest way to loose a dominant position in the realm of globalization and will eventually lead to demise. Whereas creating in consistent form is not easily replicated, and undeniably your signature, thus your IP if you will.
I would really like the "experts", self-proclaimed or otherwise, to keep that in mind. It is their participating that is relevant, not their contributions. Yes, "you own your words", but you don't own the information behind those words, no? It is the way that they share information, in a positive, patient, constructive, unselfish matter, that makes their "words" valuable. It is very, very counter-productive if these people start running in negative mode, like lawyers need to do for a living: thinking about everything that can go wrong, instead of thinking about everything that can go right.
end-of-rant
-
Fair enough, and I may have stated it somewhat more harshly than necessary, but providing information to the internet, especially in the form of answers to questions, is not protectable by law in a genetic sense. Trying to make laws to do so, or trying to apply existing laws, is equivalent to killing oneself (as a society).
Instead you should (simply) increase the speed of expansion. That is, believe in our ability to keep creating, more and more, preferrably in consistent form. You either believe in your ability to create, or you believe in your ability to protect. The latter is the surest way to loose a dominant position in the realm of globalization and will eventually lead to demise. Whereas creating in consistent form is not easily replicated, and undeniably your signature, thus your IP if you will.
I would really like the "experts", self-proclaimed or otherwise, to keep that in mind. It is their participating that is relevant, not their contributions. Yes, "you own your words", but you don't own the information behind those words, no? It is the way that they share information, in a positive, patient, constructive, unselfish matter, that makes their "words" valuable. It is very, very counter-productive if these people start running in negative mode, like lawyers need to do for a living: thinking about everything that can go wrong, instead of thinking about everything that can go right.
end-of-rant
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
oscar, i'm afraid you don't get the point.
first of all, dealing with copyrights is the basic idea in profesionell photography. you take pictures, own the copyright and sell the usage rights for a fee. may be you're business is not based on this idea, but almost all art and intelectuell content business are function this way.
second, as you stated before: the knowledge in the rg forums archive was placed to public domain. absolutely right. and that is what it is all about. to keep it public!!!!
third, maybe you should read some of the post in the medium format section of the rg forum. really valuable information way beyond the "which zoom is better"-discussions or pixelpeeping in general.
at least, i learned quite a bit about business as well.
regards
heinrich
-
third, maybe you should read some of the post in the medium format section of the rg forum. really valuable information way beyond the "which zoom is better"-discussions or pixelpeeping in general.
at least, i learned quite a bit about business as well.
I agree. It was a very educating read. And although as a passive reader mostly I am not personally involved, I dont understand what keeps the new owners from keeping the archives open, except to earn money with other people's advice and information. Which is not a good thing. I still think the owner would loose nothing in making reading free and only posting bound to membership.
THose who like the forum will pay even if they can read for free, and potentially more people will join, however in the current planned model many will not join to read what was free before. Therefore the owner will loose.
Just my opinion
Bernie
-
first of all, dealing with copyrights is the basic idea in profesionell photography. you take pictures, own the copyright and sell the usage rights for a fee. may be you're business is not based on this idea, but almost all art and intelectuell content business are function this way.
But the reason they hire you is because of your style, not because of your protected content. Ultimately that is what drives your business. There is plenty of competition, in most any business including photography as well as consultancy.
However, I admit that I'm less familiar with the content of the RG MF forum. I am more familiar with the ColorManagement forum, and frankly, that place became somewhat of a caricature. even so, I still think that within 6 months time, no one will turn their heads back to the information in either forum, because such is the nature of the internet. In addition, it takes little common sense to see that the rate of change in MF will now accelerate to what 35mm has done in the past years.
second, as you stated before: the knowledge in the rg forums archive was placed to public domain. absolutely right. and that is what it is all about. to keep it public!!!!
Agreed.
-
But the reason they hire you is because of your style, not because of your protected content. Ultimately that is what drives your business. There is plenty of competition, in most any business including photography as well as consultancy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some people make a good living licensing out their images as opposed to just shooting images for clients and handing over the results. That is why protecting your IP rights is so important - the whole stock photography market revolves around this.
It's about style, sure, but it's also about making your images work for you long after they were shot. Without IP/Copyright protection all your images are worthless since anyone could use them for free.
To bust another common myth - images on the internet are absolutely NOT "in the public domain". They may not legally be copied or used in anyway without permission, even if this is almost impossible to enforce. Using a pic copied from the internet is no different to scanning a picture in a book and selling it. Books are not in the public domain, they are in public view, but that is not the same thing at all.
If anyone uses my images in a clearly significant manner without my permission they will be hearing from me and will get an invoice, at the very least. I have successfully done this and been paid accordingly.
My 'protected content' is very valuable and I guard it with all the tools at my disposal, as should every photographer or creative professional.
-
But the reason they hire you is because of your style, not because of your protected content. Ultimately that is what drives your business. There is plenty of competition, in most any business including photography as well as consultancy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One has nothing to do with the other. Yes, they hire him for his abilities and style. The protection is for him (the image creator) of course, not the client. Photographers do NOT SELL PHOTO's, they sell usage to use/publish the image for a limited time and place (at least pro photographers who understand how the photo business works). That's the only way they can make a living. What Drew is doing is totally against everything a pro photographer does with respect to copyright, usage etc.
-
If the MF Forum at RG was like a group of friends sitting around a table in a cafe having a drink then why can't we simply move the party on to the next cafe?
Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"
Mark Tuttle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Totally agree.
I have asked paul to be included in the d64 venture(party)
Walt Roycraft
-
One has nothing to do with the other. Yes, they hire him for his abilities and style. The protection is for him (the image creator) of course, not the client. Photographers do NOT SELL PHOTO's, they sell usage to use/publish the image for a limited time and place (at least pro photographers who understand how the photo business works). That's the only way they can make a living. What Drew is doing is totally against everything a pro photographer does with respect to copyright, usage etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you so much, exactly, what I'm talking about...perfectly stated.
And just before the question turns up again, the whole discussion is not about the 25/35$
Regards
Heinrich
-
I found Melissa's email on the wedding site thanks to a tip from a poster here. FWIW, if you need to contact her (and I assume Drew:
<melissa@whitelinenphoto.com>
Sent this a few minutes ago. Be interesting to see if I get a reply and if my posts get deleted. Decided to be "nice" since I have nothing against these guys yet.
-------
Good morning. Forgive me for writing to you directly but I am unable to access the former robgalbraith.com/ forum and understand you now have control of this site. I am writing to request you delete the 2543 posts to that forum I made over the years. Since I am unable to log onto the site due to Rob and Mike locking my account, I am unable to delete the posts made under my name. I therefore request you delete each post or provide some means of accessing the site so I can do so. Some of the posts contain copyrighted material from my book. As photographers, I don’t have to tell you the ramifications of publishing copyrighted material. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
--------
-
So what will people do now? Drew has closed the forum site, saying that they have to transfer it to the new servers etc.
and: Old content (archives) will be freely readable. So noone will have to take action etc.
As far as I see, this is kind of like half the cup: He will not make the (new) forum viewable to non subscribers, what many of the old posters have asked for.
I dont know how much it actually costs over a year to run such a place, all included, but I still think he should not close it, and - maybe I am negative - I still believe that the new owner wants to make some money with it. I guess he has not gotten it for 5k, but has paid much more, so he wants to get that back somehow.
This is of course not illegal, its not even "immoral", it just means changing the character much compared to the old site, at least as it was before march 2006.
regards, Bernie
-
Actually, thats what most people, and me, asked for.
Very good. I'm glad, Drew did decide this way.
Regards
Heinrich
-
Don't mean to sound like a broken record , but it seems RG's has gone down the drain now.
It's pay-to-read, with the magnitude of worthy contributers put off by either RG or Drew.
No way to tell how, or if, the forum is going to develop, unless you pay the fee.
Judging by the recent comments on the forum before the close-down, it's not the pros who are favorable of the new business model and willing to subscribe.
It's a pity the MF community over there is lost, but good to be done with the matter, at last....
-
deleted
-
delete
-
deleted
-
deleted
-
Join the group called d64. You can't join until you send me your email address and I add you to the list. After that it should work.
How can one join the group only by its name? I've tried to search for "d64", to search in every section... nothing.
-
deleted
-
deleted
-
Signed up 24 new people so far today for d64!
Is anybody posting :>))
Mark
-
deleted
-
Hello to my fellow photographers, this is my first post to the LL board. I was brought here by the madness at the RG site and look forward to posting here in the future.
I just was reading Drew's post in the rolling archive section and was wondering what he meant by "paying members will vote in 30 days whether they will keep it going". Are they talking about the adding of new content to the archive or keeping the whole thing free to read?
Has anyone had their posts successfully deleted from the archive. I don't want it to come to that but if he closes the archive to free readers I will have no choice.
-
Has anyone had their posts successfully deleted from the archive. I don't want it to come to that but if he closes the archive to free readers I will have no choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not me. I emailed Drew again today asking that he delete my posts which I was able to access in the archives. If I don't see them gone in a few days, I have a letter ready to go to his ISP claiming abuse of my copyright.
If you're concerned that your posts get deleted, I'd make sure it's done before the archives are no longer accessible to non members or we'll need a mole inside to ensure they do get deleted.
-
Well apparently Drew isn't going to let me edit the posts nor delete them. Just got this from him:
Hi Andrew,
I appreciate your concern.
However, the archive was created to allow others to have access to this
archive the way it was originally. This request has been honored.
Even if the original RG forums were still open you would not be able to edit
these posts. Even if I were to temporarily turn your account back on
you would not be able to edit these posts. The software only allows you to edit your
posts for a short time window. That window has passed.
I'm sorry you do not trust our handling of this historical information. I can
understand your concern given the speed of change with which everything has
occured.
I wish you the best. You are certainly welcome to join our new forums.
Everyone is.
So now the question is, do I contact his ISP with a letter that he's violated copyright or simply shine it on and let the posts remain? I have nothing against Drew (other than he will not delete the posts). In a way, I could have pressed Rob, who I'm far more pissed at to remove the posts awhile ago. I have no plans to join this forum! Maybe I should just let it go...
-
Andrew,
Assuming that the 'historical' archive is freely accessible to the public,whether they are
paying subscribers of the forums or not,does that not satisfy the demands most 'historical'
authors wanted this time last week when things blew up?
To be honest,I haven't kept up with the evolution this past week and don't know that the
old forums are,indeed,freely accessible but if it is the case then I should think there would
no longer be a perceived copyright issue.
Are we each able to delete all our old posts on the L.L. forum,or on any other public
forum that is free to access,for that matter ?
Mark
-
Assuming that the 'historical' archive is freely accessible to the public,whether they are
paying subscribers of the forums or not,does that not satisfy the demands most 'historical'
authors wanted this time last week when things blew up?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe so and my gut reaction is to leave the posts and move on. It does no harm and I really have nothing (yet) against Drew.
-
Assuming that the 'historical' archive is freely accessible to the public,whether they are
paying subscribers of the forums or not,does that not satisfy the demands most 'historical'
authors wanted this time last week when things blew up?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But... is it possible that not ALL the archive is available?
I had a few threads bookmarked to read latter (but, silly me, not downloaded), and now there is no way I can find them on the "historicals". I do have the tittle of all of them, but none shows when I do search...
Am I so unlucky? Am I doing something wrong? Am I blind, somehow, and unale to find the way to the threads? Will they appear, eventually?
I wanted to a ask this to the new manager but, of course, I can not post anymore.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Thanks
Ucha
-
But... is it possible that not ALL the archive is available?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure. Seems to be. However, the search engine is not so hot. Apparently you can't search back more than 1 year. What you can do is fine one of your posts, click on the User info and then select "Show all Users Posts".
-
You can contact Drew directly through the emailaddress at the bottom of the start page of the new forum or use this one:
drew@prophotocommunity.com
I did so and he responded quite fast.
Regards
-
Not sure. Seems to be. However, the search engine is not so hot. Apparently you can't search back more than 1 year. What you can do is fine one of your posts, click on the User info and then select "Show all Users Posts".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Those threads were defenetly less than one year old, two months top... And in most of them I was more learning than posting, so I cannot find them by my user name...
Weird.. Just wrote Drew, if and when he answers, I will let you know
-
No problems with Drew.
RG and MS were _________deleted by moderator__________
-
No problems with Drew.
RG and MS were ________. I would send a letter to the ISP. I plan on it. _______MODERATED________[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63976\")
RicAgu, are you a Drew plant? I noticed another thread you started on LL that was equally offensive and as personal an attack on RG and Mike as your post here. I'm not going to get into a debate with you about them. I would hope that you don't poison this forum. Or that if you try to, you get knocked off this one like RG apparently knocked you off his. And no, won't respond to what I expect you will throw my way.
I do hope though that this forum doesn't become one that we're driven away from by the likes of these kinds of posts.
William you're right. The promise that Drew made seems to be simply unture -- at least at the moment. When you do a search for James Russell you pull up only 200 or so posts from the last few months. (You can get on the site with your old name and password without paying for the moment, but can't post.) I did a search before the site went down with JR's name to be able to key in the posts I wanted to download, and there were more than 700.
So Drew has not kept the archive of the site open. Just a mirage of it. When you read his discussion about a "three month rolling archive" system, he's apparently clueing us in to what he's done already, and then will have confirmed by the vote he plans to have of his paid membership -- which by his count in one of his threads is about 100.
the rolling archive thread:
[a href=\"http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=422127&an=0&page=0#Post422127]http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthread...ge=0#Post422127[/url]
membership numbers thread:
http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthread...ge=0#Post422174 (http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=422174&an=0&page=0#Post422174)
Hope we're just missing something, or that this will be changed now, but from what we saw last weekend (all those dozens of threads with all the RG members objecting to the whole idea of a closed forum are officially gone) have a feeling we've got it right.
What is so odd about it all -- not counting the meltdown, which still makes you shake your head -- is that if Drew and Co had taken a moment to try and understand the nature of the RG membership, and how it differs from their current site, and kept the site open and encouraged people back they would have been booming by now.
For those who missed it, the site was brought down "for technical reasons" a bit after RG, who was still the moderator at the time and allowing members to speak freely as long as they didn't get personal, deleted a post of one of the new moderators for making a personal attack on an RG member. Now that was a fitting end!
Let's hope LL becomes a good place to continue the kinds of discussions that flourished on RG --which is the only reason I'm making the effort to respond directly to the stuff above. It's important to not let LL get hijacked.
Steven
-
...................
What is so odd about it all -- not counting the meltdown, which still makes you shake your head -- is that if Drew and Co had taken a moment to try and understand the nature of the RG membership, and how it differs from their current site, and kept the site open and encouraged people back they would have been booming by now.
...................Steven
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are absolutely on the money.............The business decisions were SHORTsided.
A business person with vision would have understood the key play was transitioning the majority of the forum to the new site and building on that. Pity.
-
I would send a letter to the ISP. I plan on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From what I can figure out from Whois, (if I'm reading this correctly) it's GoDaddy.
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: PROPHOTOCOMMUNITY.COM
-
I have got a (real fast) answer from Drew. It says:
"If you substitute the new domain for the old domain in your bookmarks
it should
work.
Replace the http://forums.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads) part of the url with the
following:
http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreadsarchive (http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreadsarchive)
All of the archive should be there with the exception of any threads that had
posts dated April 21st, 2006 or later.
I have just tried the search and it seems to be working fine.
Hope this helps."
It does work on some, does not on others. May be those with posts after April 21st. Not sure of it. But the "search" is not working fine, does not retrieve all the posts.
Just to let you updated.
regards,
Ucha
-
But... is it possible that not ALL the archive is available?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
William you're right. The promise that Drew made seems to be simply unture -- at least at the moment. When you do a search for James Russell you pull up only 200 or so posts from the last few months. (You can get on the site with your old name and password without paying for the moment, but can't post.)
Actually you may be onto something. I just tried to access all my posts (over 2500) by clicking on the "Show All users Posts" but I can only get 200 to show up. Now I'm somewhat stumped how anyone is supposed to find anything in this quagmire or if all the posts actually are accessible.
-
Actually you may be onto something. I just tried to access all my posts (over 2500) by clicking on the "Show All users Posts" but I can only get 200 to show up. Now I'm somewhat stumped how anyone is supposed to find anything in this quagmire or if all the posts actually are accessible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64010\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
200 here too. The user profile shows the correct total number of posts, but then you only get 200 in the "Show All Users Posts".
John
-
Didn't you mention being anonymized at some point? Might be troublesome to search posts by username that way... The archive does seem to go back all the way to 2000.
Actually you may be onto something. I just tried to access all my posts (over 2500) by clicking on the "Show All users Posts" but I can only get 200 to show up. Now I'm somewhat stumped how anyone is supposed to find anything in this quagmire or if all the posts actually are accessible.
-
Didn't you mention being anonymized at some point? Might be troublesome to search posts by username that way... The archive does seem to go back all the way to 2000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oscar, could you give me a search that takes you back further than one year? As far as I can tell, it's not possible. And the search page states that you can't. I've tried a search using the "older than" button but just get an error message saying there are no records older than one year old.
What search instruction did you use? Thanks
-
In the ubbthreadsarchive, if you go into a forum, at the bottom of the page you'll find: Show "active in the last 3 month". If you change that to "from all dates" you can browse back to the very beginning of time. btw. the 200 results from the search function is a UBBthreads limit set by default...
Oscar, could you give me a search that takes you back further than one year? As far as I can tell, it's not possible. And the search page states that you can't. I've tried a search using the "older than" button but just get an error message saying there are no records older than one year old.
What search instruction did you use? Thanks
-
From what I can figure out from Whois, (if I'm reading this correctly) it's GoDaddy.
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: PROPHOTOCOMMUNITY.COM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, it is GoDaddy. Sort of.
-
Yes, it is GoDaddy. Sort of.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Any comment regarding the 200, Drew?
-
In the ubbthreadsarchive, if you go into a forum, at the bottom of the page you'll find: Show "active in the last 3 month". If you change that to "from all dates" you can browse back to the very beginning of time. btw. the 200 results from the search function is a UBBthreads limit set by default...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just thought you folks might be interested in reading a portion of a recent response to an email I received below.
Also, by default Ubbthreads will only search back one year. The search function is not that great. In five or 6 months we may be migrating both boards to a newer, better platform.
Just to make clear once more. The historical archive is available now, and will be available in the future completely free for everyone to enjoy and use.
I wish all of you the best in finding a place that suits what you are looking for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of a Recent Email Response:
Regarding posts missing from the public archive. The archive is only supposed
to go through the announcement of the sale on the 21st. After this time it was
made plain that the forums were going to be on a subscription basis moving
forward. However, it has come to my attention recently that when the database
was pruned it pulled out the entire thread if it had any single post dated
April 21st or later. We are looking into this to see if it can be rectified.
As far as class action and all the rest. There is not, and never was any
actionable legal claim in this matter. I'm sure it may seem as if I caved to
pressure from my attorney. This is not the case at all. I was absent from the
forums all last Sunday because I took the day off to be with my family and
attend church. I hoped to make it clear by leaving the archive public that my
intent when I said it was a great "asset" was in terms of the history, not in
terms of money. What assets does a forum really have? A url that gets a lot
of traffic? Well, I will not be getting that. It is simply on loan for 6
months. The only things a forum has are the people. Many of these people have
expressed their strong support for the move and have decided to join.
I am truly sorry that some people have become upset over the sale of the forums.
It must seem like a hostile takeover. This is so far from the truth. I found
out about the closure of the forums the same way you all did. By surfing over
and seeing the closure notice on the site. I did not want to see it die, so
Rob and I worked out a plan to keep them growing and alive. I do not plan to
address these old issues further, as my time must now be spent looking to the
future. If some of the old members that spoke out prior to the transition
would like to join I think that is great. I do not harbor them any ill will. Nor, do I
hold grudges.
Wishing you the best. Please feel free to share this with anyone whom you may
feel would benefit.
Drew
-
I am truly sorry that some people have become upset over the sale of the forums.
It must seem like a hostile takeover. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually most folks here were more upset with Rob and Mike and how they screwed the forum posters and ran the forums into the ground. I don't think anyone has anything against you (yet ;-)) now that the archives are open. But don't follow Rob's footsteps or you'll be a very unhappy camper.
-
In the ubbthreadsarchive, if you go into a forum, at the bottom of the page you'll find: Show "active in the last 3 month". If you change that to "from all dates" you can browse back to the very beginning of time. btw. the 200 results from the search function is a UBBthreads limit set by default...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And Drew said: "Just to make clear once more. The historical archive is available now"
Oscar, could you give us the http link where the historical archive is available to everyone. It's not apparent how one accesses those. (I'm not a member so don't have access to the walled off areas of the new forum.) Thanks
Drew, when I do a search now for James Russell, the results have gone down to 0 matches, down from 200 (yesterday's search result, which was already down from about 700 matches when I did a search going back 1 year just before you shut the site down last week). Could you explain why there are now no matches for a search of JR's posts? Have you deleted his posts/threads, limited the search feature, or some other explanantion? Thanks
-
Leaving the old forums open is a strategy to attracted new subscribers. It’s a tease to see what you can read on the new paid forum. Unfortunately for anyone who does not know the true history of the real RG site, he ran off most of the better posters. I do not believe he made this info open for any other reason.
-
In the ubbthreadsarchive, if you go into a forum, at the bottom of the page you'll find: Show "active in the last 3 month". If you change that to "from all dates" you can browse back to the very beginning of time. btw. the 200 results from the search function is a UBBthreads limit set by default...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=64059\")
Oscar, figured it out. It was a bit hard to find, but it is still about as you described, so Drew did stick to the letter of his commitment. Although with the search feature now so limited, really not possible to make any real use of -- but as I understand it that's true whether one pays or not. Here is where the public archive is:
[a href=\"http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreadsarchive/ubbthreads.php]http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthread.../ubbthreads.php[/url]
-
At least one must give Drew credit for being willing to address the concerns of the present and past subscriber base. I'm not sure I support the new business model, but at least he listens to his customers.
-
Leaving the old forums open is a strategy to attracted new subscribers. It’s a tease to see what you can read on the new paid forum. Unfortunately for anyone who does not know the true history of the real RG site, he ran off most of the better posters. I do not believe he made this info open for any other reason.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He did it, that is the important thing.
Several posters have almost menaced the new owners in respect to "copyright" of their older postings. While I basically unerstand the point, Drew opened the old content and the problem should be over now.
It is time to move on. In 2 or 3 months the old archives will just be that: Old archives about an industry that goes forward so quickly that in 1y noone will be interested in the old stuff.
Bernie
-
At least one must give Drew credit for being willing to address the concerns of the present and past subscriber base. I'm not sure I support the new business model, but at least he listens to his customers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry to contribute to this post going on a little longer, but having given Drew credit for making the archive available, thought I should mention that he's now turned off the search feature entirely to the public thread. That pretty much makes the public archive unusable. The action speaks for itself -- even though the server is again taking the blame.
One last note about Drew's e-mail above. The discussion on the RG forum during the weekend that has now been deleted, had really nothing to do with an expression that there was a hostile takeover. Nearly all the posters wished the new owners the very best, but raised questions about closing the forum from view to non-subscribers -- and not because the posters wanted to avoid paying for membership, but because they hoped to continue the kinds of discussions that fed on open view and believed would only lead to a healthy and profitable site. It was a very thoughtful and well intentioned discussion by many long time RG members -- with good discussion on both sides. It would be nice if those discussions were put back up to speak for themselves, but I doubt they ever will be. Something important to take into account when criticizing Mike or Rob for censoring and then misrepresenting conversation.
Speaking just for myself, I expressed the thought that, just like with a home, any new owner has every right to redecorate as they choose. And best to them. I did, however, feel it was unfortunate that a decision was made to take a home with the stunning space and wonderful light and views of RG and choose to brick it all up. Concern of a hostile takeover, no. Unfortunate choices, yes. Only one voice, but I think fairly representative.
-
Speaking just for myself,
It was brought to my attention that my name had reappeared on the old RG forums now owned by Drew Strickland.
I noticed that many of the post attributed to me were actually written by other past members so I brought this to Drew's attention, who called me immediately.
Apparently somebody had logged on under my name and had moved posts around or something of that nature which is a real shame and totally uncalled for.
This was my first conversation with Drew and I found him personable and quite kind in all of his responses and I am sure he will rectify the situation.
Since the RG forum changed hands a lot of dialog has gone on and most of it not positive which really is unfair.
It seems to me that Drew is only trying to provide and service and hopefully turn a modest profit, which is nothing different than I or most of us endeavor to do daily.
I wish Drew all the best as well as everyone, MR included that keeps the online communities open.
RG had morphed into something it wasn't meant to be which was as much an online professional photography disucssion as it was an open forum for talk of sharing and learning technique.
For better or worse, I believe it was this form of disucssion that temporarilly made it a success.
Hopefully that form of disucssion will resurface somewhere else, wheter back on Drews blog or here with Michael.
Regardless of how things finally evolve, I can't imagine how difficult it must be to run a forum and I have the highest respect for any group or individual that does this for us.
Still I would strongly appreciate it if everyone would respect Drew's property and not deface it by using my and other other people's names just to cause damage.
No one deserves that.
All the best,
James Russell
-
Since the RG forum changed hands a lot of dialog has gone on and most of it not positive which really is unfair.
It seems to me that Drew is only trying to provide and service and hopefully turn a modest profit, which is nothing different than I or most of us endeavor to do daily.
I wish Drew all the best as well as everyone, MR included that keeps the online communities open.
RG had morphed into something it wasn't meant to be which was as much an online professional photography disucssion as it was an open forum for talk of sharing and learning technique.
For better or worse, I believe it was this form of disucssion that temporarilly made it a success.
James Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tooo True, can you imagine Rob or Mike actually sticking their heads up from behind the "moderator's parapet" to actually have a dialog ?! No of course not.
I know of many people who were banned protesting or trying to clear up the situation of removing their posts and not even being given the curtesy of a reply (from Rob and Mike) by e-mail - just stone walled!
At least Drew has bothered (and brave enought given the tensions on this) to address our questions and no doubt some of us might reconsider our damning of the site now it is new ownership - and yes a new name !