Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[josh.reichmann]

So simple question: Jeremy was an unpaid volunteer moderator right? Further, it's not OK that any member here (some of us paying in the past), are as "guilty" as Jeremy if and when we also venture over to Kevin's site? 
You're going to have to get a new moderator, maybe you will take up that position as we know you'll never venture over to Kevin's site. Or you'll monitor your new moderator(s) as to what sites he/she goes to, as you did not, according to Jeremy until recently, that monitoring will result in a moderator IF he/she ventures over and posts (or dog forbid), moderates on PhotoPXL?
Please make your position clear, now that you and Jeremy are providing the internal dirty laundry as to the forums.
Last question if you will: when did moderation start on LuLa's forums? I've been around (look at the number of posts) since 2004. I don't recall "The Coffee Corner" or moderation back in the day, if I'm wrong, please correct my failed memory.
I will state again, an opinion I've made in the past: if this site was dedicated to just photography as I believe it once was under you father, the need for moderation would drop hugely. But yeah, the Coffee Corner is really necessary.
YES I've posted here a lot. Take it away, I'm absolutely fine with that! In fact, I'd prefer not to have an excuse to be sucked into discussions of politics. If we need to debate and argue, the old "Nikon is better than Canon", Mac's are better than PC's", "Film is better than digital" would at least be ON TOPIC for this site. And I will bet you, far, far less toxic and in need of moderation.

I think you are right. We don’t need a moderator. Our webmaster and myself are more than capable of cleaning up spam. And on the odd occasion things are reported we can manage. Of course all are free to visit any site they like ! Including contributors writing for other photography sites etc.  The issue was more of a personal nature to do with historic and very real conflicts, and to do with how I’d like the site represented. Being a moderator does (or did) carry some weight, and I’d like people who represent the site to at least respect the content and echo my ethos of more toned down less petty dialogue. Most importantly if anyone contributes to the site - it seems only natural that they don’t try and disparage it as well.
In any event, he’s made his decision. And after some very unfortunate personal attacks towards me and others-won’t be contributing here.

Josh

[John Camp]

Ah, crap. I've been coming to this site for sixteen years now, through the great rush to digital, and I gotta say I'm really sad to see this kind of dispute flare up. There's been a distinct lack of something -- call it "personality," or "photographic rigor" -- in Lula since Michael died, which has drained away some of the interest. Nevertheless, it has continued to be a useful site and I'll continue to come here, although I've added PhotoPXL.com to my bookmarks. 

[jeremyrh]

I wouldn't argue that Jeremy was the perfect moderator—it's a thankless function, needless to say—but he did the job for the most part fairly and always intelligently.

Can't say I agree - he seemed to get confused between the role of moderator  and contributor and to use his power to silence those who called him out. "Good riddance" is my feeling.  Josh has done a good job of bringing variety to the site beyond Kevin's endless Sony advert, and I wish him the best going forward from here.

[jeremyrh]

It seems Biden doesn't want to follow the science of his Chief advisor Dr. Fauci.  Like I said previously in another thread before being silenced and sent to the corner for a week, Biden's making political decisions just like Trump did ignoring his main "expert" advisor.  Of course, because a Democrat is doing it, the press whitewashes it digging up less important advisors who think like Biden.

Fauci says US should prioritize administering second vaccine dose over giving out first jabs to more Americans

Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden and longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday that "scientific data" supported prioritizing the administering of both doses of the presently available Pfizer and Moderna vaccines instead of focusing the current supply on administering first shot to as many people as possible.

"What we have right now, and what we must go with, is the scientific data that we've accumulated," Fauci, the top US infectious disease expert, told Chuck Todd during a Sunday morning interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And it's really solid."
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-us-should-prioritize-second-vaccine-doses-2021-2

Alan - you've only been back 5 minutes and I'm already sick of your dishonest cherry-picking of anecdotes to support your dodgy political views. From the article you cited:

There is currently a discussion among medical experts about the most effective way to utilize the current supply of vaccines to best increase immunity in the US to most effectively permit US businesses and institutions, like schools, to safely resume operations, and to avoid further spread of the virus.

As NBC News reported, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top infectious disease expert and the of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, last week said he supported an effort to prioritize the administering of the first dose to more Americans to more quickly prevent the spread of more contagious strains of the virus.

So Biden is not ignoring scientific advice - he is weighing arguments on both sides of a public health issue and making an informed decision. Compare and contrast - "try injecting bleach".

[Manoli]

I've been around (look at the number of posts) since 2004. I don't recall "The Coffee Corner" or moderation back in the day, if I'm wrong, please correct my failed memory.
[..]
I will state again, an opinion I've made in the past: if this site was dedicated to just photography as I believe it once was under you father, the need for moderation would drop hugely. But yeah, the Coffee Corner is really necessary.

Yup, you're quite wrong.

The Coffee Corner existed under Michael's tenure and the moderators were Michael himself, Chris Sanderson (whose role as Moderator continued well past Michael’s passing) and, de facto, Jeff Schewe. Michael was an enthusiastic contributor to many threads and, as I've said before, his posts are a Masterclass in 'how-to-moderate' (*).

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=12955

Back in the day, the Forum (not just the Coffee Corner) was considered a resource. There were plenty of animated and informed discussions, and though at the end access to the site's articles were subscription based, after much discussion, access to the forum was kept free - mainly to encourage contributions and maintain the site's status.

A moderator is not simply a kindergarten nanny - his/her role is also to foster interest and discussion, and you’ll see that from other well known internet sites - Fred Miranda and GetDPi to name but two.

Unfortunately, Jeremy, devoid of Michael's gravitas, decided to tamper with a formula that had proved more than successful and had encouraged much additional external attention.  So much so that some, now long gone, fearing Kevin Raber's motives (aka monetisation) started deleting their posts. They needn't have worried so much. Jeremy did a marvellous job of decimating interest. The forum figures for annual page hits speak volumes

2017   79,290.699
2018   64,879,421
2019   37,614,593
2020   17,565,934

A drop of almost 80% in 3 years.
Q.E.D.

LuLa was listed as among the top 100 internet sites and the go-to site for photography.  The challenge now is to restore it to its former status - and to that end a ‘Moderator’ will be needed - Andrew Rodney perhaps ?

—
(*) Andrew, click through on post #2 in the link and your memory will be well refreshed !

[William Walker]

What's 220 violent demonstrations? No big deal.

Widespread vandalism and looting during BLM protests will cost the insurance $2 BILLION after violence erupted in 140 cities in the wake of George Floyd's death
Unrest in wake of George Floyd's death resulted in record insurance payouts
A total of between $1-2billion in claims have been filed due to property damage
Riots, arson, and looting took place in Minneapolis and spread to 140 cities
Six people died in the rioting and National Guard was called up in 21 states
Recent unrest took place in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after police shot Jacob Blake
Kenosha fire chief says rioting and unrest resulted in $11million in damage
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8740609/Rioting-140-cities-George-Floyds-death-cost-insurance-industry-2-BILLION.html

The other day on Twitter I saw a short video about deciding who to believe regarding most of the things discussed on this thread. I went back to try and find it , without luck.

The gist of it was this: look around and see who else shares your thinking or principles. 
When it comes to Covid, do you listen to scientists and epidemiologists, or quacks and science deniers... the same goes for climate change and so on.
When it comes to politics, do you share your views with "communists" and "socialists" or do you share your views with science-deniers, racists, supremacists and bigots?
Now, it seems to me, a white South African who lived through (and benefitted from) apartheid, that the BLM "unrest" is as justified as any "unrest" we had here. Regardless of what you think of violent protest. (Personally, I'm not a fan of violence but, certainly in South Africa, the only time the government seems to act is when things become violent. Sad, but true.)

So, Alan, you are known by the folks you associate with, and I would, given the choice, prefer not to be associated with some of the folks and thinking of "your side". 

P.S. The "socialism" that scares you so much does not worry me at all.

[josh.reichmann]

Yup, you're quite wrong.

The Coffee Corner existed under Michael's tenure and the moderators were Michael himself, Chris Sanderson (whose role as Moderator continued well past Michael’s passing) and, de facto, Jeff Schewe. Michael was an enthusiastic contributor to many threads and, as I've said before, his posts are a Masterclass in 'how-to-moderate' (*).

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=12955

Back in the day, the Forum (not just the Coffee Corner) was considered a resource. There were plenty of animated and informed discussions, and though at the end access to the site's articles were subscription based, after much discussion, access to the forum was kept free - mainly to encourage contributions and maintain the site's status.

A moderator is not simply a kindergarten nanny - his/her role is also to foster interest and discussion, and you’ll see that from other well known internet sites - Fred Miranda and GetDPi to name but two.

Unfortunately, Jeremy, devoid of Michael's gravitas, decided to tamper with a formula that had proved more than successful and had encouraged much additional external attention.  So much so that some, now long gone, fearing Kevin Raber's motives (aka monetisation) started deleting their posts. They needn't have worried so much. Jeremy did a marvellous job of decimating interest. The forum figures for annual page hits speak volumes

2017   79,290.699
2018   64,879,421
2019   37,614,593
2020   17,565,934

A drop of almost 80% in 3 years.
Q.E.D.

LuLa was listed as among the top 100 internet sites and the go-to site for photography.  The challenge now is to restore it to its former status - and to that end a ‘Moderator’ will be needed - Andrew Rodney perhaps ?

—
(*) Andrew, click through on post #2 in the link and your memory will be well refreshed !

This is a useful take. I won’t dive into numbers, though I will say that articles written in the last year+ receive more views then any in the past. We are becoming a magnet as many photography sites whither or fractalize. The web has, as you said, gobbled and spread attention all over as photography has shrunk - though I see a renewal (topic for another thread). This view count having to do with our SEO duration among other things. I’d love it if someone wanted to seed more specific camera related threads. I may do so, and I am very open to others stepping up (?).  If left to me it will be Eric & Bret Weinstein sub topics and maybe some future tech/physics stuff and some outsider music 

[Rhossydd]

A drop of almost 80% in 3 years.

I don't think it's reasonable to attribute this to just a change of moderation.

To make any sense of declining views you'd need to see if this was only happening here or more widely across photography web sites.

There are a number of factors;
Moving to subscription will have put off a huge number of people.
Digital photography as a whole subject has matured, is less contentious and generally not a 'hot' topic anymore.
A lot of discussion has moved to specialist groups on social media, rather than web forums.
This forum's contributors in particular are not always the most novice friendly bunch to encourage new users.

The only moderation error I've seen here in recent years is a failure to terminate the tedious political threads that have caused so much friction and wasted bandwidth.

[rabanito]

I wonder what you guys are talking about.
I fell in this Bear Pit - which I usually try to avoid - just by mistake.
What's going on? 

[Alan Klein]

Alan - you've only been back 5 minutes and I'm already sick of your dishonest cherry-picking of anecdotes to support your dodgy political views. From the article you cited:

There is currently a discussion among medical experts about the most effective way to utilize the current supply of vaccines to best increase immunity in the US to most effectively permit US businesses and institutions, like schools, to safely resume operations, and to avoid further spread of the virus.

As NBC News reported, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top infectious disease expert and the of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, last week said he supported an effort to prioritize the administering of the first dose to more Americans to more quickly prevent the spread of more contagious strains of the virus.

So Biden is not ignoring scientific advice - he is weighing arguments on both sides of a public health issue and making an informed decision. Compare and contrast - "try injecting bleach".

Biden gave his advice in early January two weeks before he became president.  He wasn't speaking to key officials in the Trump administration at that time.  There were no experts standing next to him when he gave his contrarian position.  Nor did he refer to any experts he spoke to, if he did speak to any. Meanwhile, the press said nothing about his unilateral decision.    If Trump had gone against Fauci's position, all hell would have broken loose.  Everyone would have accused him of not listening to his experts.  There's a double standard, as usual, from the press.  Apparently, Biden is an expert in his own right.

[jeremyrh]

Biden gave his advice in early January two weeks before he became president.  He wasn't speaking to key officials in the Trump administration at that time.  There were no experts standing next to him when he gave his contrarian position.  Nor did he refer to any experts he spoke to, if he did speak to any. Meanwhile, the press said nothing about his unilateral decision.    If Trump had gone against Fauci's position, all hell would have broken loose.  Everyone would have accused him of not listening to his experts.  There's a double standard, as usual, from the press.  Apparently, Biden is an expert in his own right.

That's a crock from beginning to end.  It was nice to not read such stuff for a week. I think I'll have to remind myself how the "ignore" list works.  Have a nice life.

[Alan Klein]

Alan - you've only been back 5 minutes and I'm already sick of your dishonest cherry-picking of anecdotes to support your dodgy political views. From the article you cited:

There is currently a discussion among medical experts about the most effective way to utilize the current supply of vaccines to best increase immunity in the US to most effectively permit US businesses and institutions, like schools, to safely resume operations, and to avoid further spread of the virus.

As NBC News reported, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top infectious disease expert and the of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, last week said he supported an effort to prioritize the administering of the first dose to more Americans to more quickly prevent the spread of more contagious strains of the virus.

So Biden is not ignoring scientific advice - he is weighing arguments on both sides of a public health issue and making an informed decision. Compare and contrast - "try injecting bleach".

Here's what Biden released on Jan 8th.  There was no reference to medical advice by his spokesman.  Nor did he mention it in the interview of Biden I saw on TV at the time.  He made the decision unilaterally.  You're the one dishonestyly cherry picking the truth. 

What they're saying: "The president-elect believes we must accelerate distribution of the vaccine while continuing to ensure the Americans who need it most get it as soon as possible," T.J. Ducklo, a spokesperson for Biden's transition, told CNN.

"He supports releasing available doses immediately, and believes the government should stop holding back vaccine supply so we can get more shots in Americans' arms now."
"He will share additional details next week on how his administration will begin releasing available doses when he assumes office on January 20th."
https://www.axios.com/biden-release-coronavirus-vaccine-8b1b0dda-edd2-4739-917f-cf815ae165ff.html

[Alan Klein]

That's a crock from beginning to end.  It was nice to not read such stuff for a week. I think I'll have to remind myself how the "ignore" list works.  Have a nice life.

You;ve just joined the rest of the insulters.  Enough already.  I just added you to my ignore list.

[LesPalenik]

What happens when poster A ignores poster B and poster B ignores poster A?

Is it like "minus times minus is plus"? For instance, suppose you have (–1)(–1) = +1. Any two negatives, when multiplied together, become one positive.

[jeremyrh]

What happens when poster A ignores poster B and poster B ignores poster A?

Is it like "minus times minus is plus"? For instance, suppose you have (–1)(–1) = +1. Any two negatives, when multiplied together, become one positive.

Maybe, but what is more annoying is that you only get to ignore that poster's postings and not the times when they are quoted, so to some extent you still get to see their jibbering idiocy.

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe, but what is more annoying is that you only get to ignore that poster's postings and not the times when they are quoted, so to some extent you still get to see their jibbering idiocy.

Congrats!. You've made it into the Alan ignore list club. I send you my welcome. I've been saying it for a long time now, his peculiar and often contradictory positions smell more like trolling than anything else. If this keeps up, he won't have anyone left to argue with.

[Alan Klein]

What happens when poster A ignores poster B and poster B ignores poster A?

Is it like "minus times minus is plus"? For instance, suppose you have (–1)(–1) = +1. Any two negatives, when multiplied together, become one positive.

No.  With so many annoying and insulting people, you reach the point where you leave the site totally and let the choir preach to itself.   

[Robert Roaldi]

This is a useful take. I won’t dive into numbers, though I will say that articles written in the last year+ receive more views then any in the past. We are becoming a magnet as many photography sites whither or fractalize. The web has, as you said, gobbled and spread attention all over as photography has shrunk - though I see a renewal (topic for another thread). This view count having to do with our SEO duration among other things. I’d love it if someone wanted to seed more specific camera related threads. I may do so, and I am very open to others stepping up (?).  If left to me it will be Eric & Bret Weinstein sub topics and maybe some future tech/physics stuff and some outsider music 

I've enjoyed the new main site articles, not all of them but it's silly to expect that. I had not been reading many of the articles on the previous generation of the site, too much gear stuff back then. There are tons of places to get basic info on gear.  I do value the kind of obscure techy stuff we see in many of the discussions on these forums though, colour management, video, raw converters, etc.

There have been some complaints about there not being enough photography material, as opposed to camera/gear content, but I don't feel that's true. I haven't done an article type count so can't back that up. Criticism is a niche area anyway, so not sure how well that could work in an open forum. But there have been articles of people showing their methods and projects that are infinitely more interesting than what sensor is used in which body. There continue to be plenty of threads where people show their work, that never went away. They're not difficult to find.

The politics did run wild but we lived through pretty unusual times, with everyone stuck at home surrounded by various forms of madness on social media. I don't understand the complaints of there being too much politics. It's quite easy to ignore, it was only ever a few threads with only a limited number of participants. But I understand how one could be attracted to it despite not wanting to be. I've rubber-necked at road accidents too. I think it was well-contained though and from what I can tell is dying a natural death after Trump's de-election.

[faberryman]

Biden gave his advice in early January two weeks before he became president.  He wasn't speaking to key officials in the Trump administration at that time.  There were no experts standing next to him when he gave his contrarian position.  Nor did he refer to any experts he spoke to, if he did speak to any. Meanwhile, the press said nothing about his unilateral decision.

I remember when Trump descended the escalator to announce he was running for president. There was a big crowd clapping and cheering. Turns out the crowd was comprised of out of work actors he paid $50 for them to show up and cheer him on. Maybe Biden needs to hire some out of work actors and pay them $50 dollars to stand behind him in white lab coats when he is giving his COVID updates. Would that make you feel better?

[faberryman]

You;ve just joined the rest of the insulters.  Enough already.  I just added you to my ignore list.

I think you may be the last one. Now everybody is on ignore.