Forum Participation Question

[Roman Kurywczak]

I have a questions and poll for both members and participants which will probably be another sensitive topic......so let's remember to keep it civil!

How long should BPN allow partcipants to post in the forums. Right now, it is indefinite.....which raises some concerns behind the scenes so I would like your feedback on your choice.

1. Participants can participate indefinitely

2. Participants have 1 year to participate and after that period, join or not be allowed to post.

3. Participants have 6 months to participate and after that period, join or not be allowed to post.

4. Participants have 3 months to participate and after that period, join or not be allowed to post.

5. Particpants have restricted areas that they can partcipate without joining.

[Jay Gould]

Three months works for me. If you do not realize the benefits from a $20 investment - tough!

[Steve Kaluski]

With the wealth of knowledge, the high calibre & diversity of images from around the world and the overall growing content of the Forum, $20 is a bargin and as Jay said, a good investment too.

[Dumay de Boulle]

All I have to say is being a BPN member is the best $20 (R140 South African Rands) I have ever spent

[Stu Bowie]

Even us South Africans as Dumay mentioned pay 140 bucks, well thats our exchange rate to the dollar, and I feel its worth every cent. You get to see images from across the globe, and make friends too.

[Roman Kurywczak]

I forgot to vote.....until now. I like the idea of 3 months with no restrictions.......so new people to the site can take it for a "test drive"........after that trial period.....you would have limited/restricted access.

[Jay Gould]

I forgot to vote.....until now. I like the idea of 3 months with no restrictions.......so new people to the site can take it for a "test drive"........after that trial period.....you would have limited/restricted access.

Limited to looking and not posting!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Limited to looking and not posting!

Correct! May tweak the time to say 4 months.....but that should be enough.

[Jay Gould]

Lets hold out for three and compromise at four when management says six!

[Mike Tracy]

Unless voting is restricted to members only the results might not be accurate. I will speculate most forum participants check indefinite

I say 3 months is ample time to pony up or move on.

[Jay Gould]

Duh! Now why didn't Roman think of that?

A very valid observation!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Unless voting is restricted to members only the results might not be accurate. I will speculate most forum participants check indefinite

I say 3 months is ample time to pony up or move on.

I agree on the 3 months Mike.....but as for the members who vote.....I checked the box to show who voted. In your poll......are the numbers underlined? If you click on it......can you see the members names? That way we can judge if the voting is stacked. I'm from NJ.....so I may know a thing or 2 about that. I beleive we've had dead people vote in a few elections:eek:.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Duh! Now why didn't Roman think of that?

A very valid observation!

See above. Can you see who voted when you click on the numbers in the poll? You are supposed to......I can......so we are making sure the deck isn't stacked. I had a lot of coffee today.......so the hamster is running full speed up in the noggin'!

[Mike Tracy]

I agree on the 3 months Mike.....but as for the members who vote.....I checked the box to show who voted. In your poll......are the numbers underlined? If you click on it......can you see the members names? That way we can judge if the voting is stacked. I'm from NJ.....so I may know a thing or 2 about that. I beleive we've had dead people vote in a few elections:eek:.

Gotcha. I can see the names.

Your pretty sharp for being primarily a landscape guy.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Gotcha. I can see the names.

Your pretty sharp for being primarily a landscape guy.

Ouch! I might have to fix that misperception!

[arash_hazeghi]

haha Roman that's scary the votes should be anonymous!!!!

[peter delaney]

The amount of time and money we spend on our photography , why would someone need 3 months to think about spending $20 on a forum were they can show case their work ,learn from their peers and become a member of one big cosmopolitan family

[Bob Decker]

What everyone seems to be missing is that a large part of the income potential for a site like this comes for advertising. Big visitor numbers drives advertising desireability and value. Next, is the sale of products, the promotion of books and of workshops. Again, the more accessible the site the higher the sales are likely to be. Membership fees are likely a very small part of the money flowing into this site. The fee is more to off-set the cost of hosting images on the site's server than to pay the bills.

[Roger Clark]

I voted for one year. In this day and age there seems to be an attitude that the internet should be free. I think if the limit were set to 3 months, some people who may occasionally visit may not be here long enough to realize the benefits to becoming a paying member. To encourage participation, I vote to be on the easy side as it may take a while to convince some people.

Let me add also that the image quality level from people who post on BPN is well above the the average photographer, especially beginners (and some with decades of photography experience) who may aspire to take pro-quality photos. They may be surprised to learn how far apart their photos are from the great photos they thoguht they were taking (when they had gotten many Wow! great photo! comments on other sites). So it may take them a while to even get to a level of being comfortable in posting in eager to learn, let alone the bird forum. I think an early requirement for those people may be too soon for them to be comfortable. Obviously, such cases are the very ones who could be helped the most, but that is our perspective having the insight. They have to come to that same realization on their own and it takes time.

Roger

[Bob Decker]

It's probably also worth noting that membership provides a number of benefits not offered to non-member participants. There are advantages to paying to play. Personally I don't see the need to force membership. Apparently the current business model works for the forum owners. Who am I, as a participant, to tell them how to run their business?

[Dave Leroy]

So I guess the way this is going to work is from the first time a person posts and/or does a search the clock is ticking. Otherwise and no change here, a person can lurk indefinitely.

I think it took me a couple months to join after finding the site and i was actively looking for some way of getting started with constructive feedback.

So speaking for the ETL types out there, I think 6 months is a good compromise to entice those not sure or confident enough to get going.

Dave

[Roman Kurywczak]

Great thoughts expressed by all and all valid IMO. I hope more poeple vote to get a better understanding of both the members and participants.

[Harshad Barve]

The day I seen this forum , I became member , no need to allow forum participants to see everything for FREE and PARTICIPATE , If you can spend $$$$$ for equips , 20 $ is nothing for learning how to use it

Just my 2 cents

[Harshad Barve]

4. Participants have 3 months to participate and after that period, join or not be allowed to post.
.

I can agree on of FP being able to see forum for some time , but they should not be allowed to PARTICIPATE

[Maureen Allen]

I agree with Harshad. Why not let people look around all they want (and for as long as they want) but limit them to just that. No participation until you pay. This site is so worth the small investment and if people really want to learn, it's a ridiculously small price to pay for an incredible education.

[Jim Neiger]

I think we want as many members as possible. To do this we need to attract them to the site, demonstrate the value, and then give them an incentive to join. I think a 6 month cutoff is good for this. Many people are busy and three months may not be enough time to demonstarte the value if their visits are infrequent. 6 months seems reasonable to me. We want to err on the side of too much time, not, not enough time.

[Jim Neiger]

I can agree on of FP being able to see forum for some time , but they should not be allowed to PARTICIPATE

We want them to experience the thrill of getting great comments on their work or ideas.

[P-A. Fortin]

I voted for one year. In this day and age there seems to be an attitude that the internet should be free. I think if the limit were set to 3 months, some people who may occasionally visit may not be here long enough to realize the benefits to becoming a paying member. To encourage participation, I vote to be on the easy side as it may take a while to convince some people.

Let me add also that the image quality level from people who post on BPN is well above the the average photographer, especially beginners (and some with decades of photography experience) who may aspire to take pro-quality photos. They may be surprised to learn how far apart their photos are from the great photos they thoguht they were taking (when they had gotten many Wow! great photo! comments on other sites). So it may take them a while to even get to a level of being comfortable in posting in eager to learn, let alone the bird forum. I think an early requirement for those people may be too soon for them to be comfortable. Obviously, such cases are the very ones who could be helped the most, but that is our perspective having the insight. They have to come to that same realization on their own and it takes time.

Roger

Could not have said it better myself.

[Mostly because of my English, but that's not the point here.]

[Hilary Hann]

I voted for one year. In this day and age there seems to be an attitude that the internet should be free. I think if the limit were set to 3 months, some people who may occasionally visit may not be here long enough to realize the benefits to becoming a paying member. To encourage participation, I vote to be on the easy side as it may take a while to convince some people.

Let me add also that the image quality level from people who post on BPN is well above the the average photographer, especially beginners (and some with decades of photography experience) who may aspire to take pro-quality photos. They may be surprised to learn how far apart their photos are from the great photos they thoguht they were taking (when they had gotten many Wow! great photo! comments on other sites). So it may take them a while to even get to a level of being comfortable in posting in eager to learn, let alone the bird forum. I think an early requirement for those people may be too soon for them to be comfortable. Obviously, such cases are the very ones who could be helped the most, but that is our perspective having the insight. They have to come to that same realization on their own and it takes time.

Roger

Good points Roger, would possibly change my vote if I had read this first but too late now.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Jim brings up some very good points as well for allowing longer acess. Hope more people chime in!

[Jamie Strickland]

I voted for one year. In this day and age there seems to be an attitude that the internet should be free. I think if the limit were set to 3 months, some people who may occasionally visit may not be here long enough to realize the benefits to becoming a paying member. To encourage participation, I vote to be on the easy side as it may take a while to convince some people.

Let me add also that the image quality level from people who post on BPN is well above the the average photographer, especially beginners (and some with decades of photography experience) who may aspire to take pro-quality photos. They may be surprised to learn how far apart their photos are from the great photos they thoguht they were taking (when they had gotten many Wow! great photo! comments on other sites). So it may take them a while to even get to a level of being comfortable in posting in eager to learn, let alone the bird forum. I think an early requirement for those people may be too soon for them to be comfortable. Obviously, such cases are the very ones who could be helped the most, but that is our perspective having the insight. They have to come to that same realization on their own and it takes time.

Roger

I agree with Roger

[Tom Graham]

The poll has 57 votes.
The thread has 1,374 views.
What does 1,317 abstains mean?
Tom

[Hilary Hann]

Tom, I have looked at this thread many times, every time someone posts a reply. Sorry that I've bumped up the viewing count, others may have as well. Some may not want their name to appear next to their vote. Some haven't decided yet. Lots of reasons why a vote may not have been made. Also, can non members/participants look at the thread even though they can't vote? Many reasons.

[Tom Graham]

AH HA, so Hilary, you are confessing , you are the one viewing 1,317 times!!!!
Way too much time on your hands!!! Don't you have any more color photos you can make into B&W???
Tom
no stupid clown face here so I'll use

[Hilary Hann]

1318

[Steve Kaluski]

Tom I assume you have now placed your vote, so lets not add to the numbers Boys & Girls.

[Bob Decker]

The poll has 57 votes.
The thread has 1,374 views.
What does 1,317 abstains mean?
Tom

Maybe that unless the forums' publishers are the ones asking the question it's all moot? Or perhaps it means they're just happy to be here and don't really care one way or the other if paid membership is forced? Maybe even several, like Hillary, keep getting drawn back to check results like so many moths drawn to the flame!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Like many, I have checked the results myself to see how it was going. I'm not going to speculate as to why people looked but didn't vote ....but it doesn't require a PhD to figure out that some participants would love to see it continue indefinitely and just use the site. I am only a moderator....not an owner. The final decision will of course be thiers.

I do take issue with the term "forced membership" above by Bob. I know of no company that allows you to use their product for free indefinitely. Why should it be any different here?

[Bob Decker]

I do take issue with the term "forced membership" above by Bob. I know of no company that allows you to use their product for free indefinitely. Why should it be any different here?

First, Roman, I'm a paid subscriber by choice. If however I come to feel the owners or their representatives treat me in a disrespectful or unacceptable manner that could change when renewal comes due.

Secondly, should I list the number of photography forums on the interwebs that do not require a subscription fee for participation? It would become quite a long list. Similarly, there are a number of forums that do require a paid subscription in order to participate, usually with a short free subscription allowing folks to see and decide if they want to spend their hard earned cash. In my possibly simple mind that is a form of "forcing membership" on folks who want to participate. It's non-negotiable... you pay to play or don't play at all. I'm not sure of your definition of "forced" is but being "required" seems pretty close to mine.

It makes no difference to me. Not my forum. I have no major financial investment in it nor, because of that fact, should I have any major role in decision making. As long as I see the value in membership I'll continue to pay. There are advantages to membership here... advantages that have value to me beyond payment being a requirement of participation.

Now at this point, Roman, I'll stop expressing my opinion. Because you, as a representative of the owners, have made me feel uncomfortable doing so. Enjoy your conversation and poll that apparently is only interested in one side's opinions.

Later,

[Roman Kurywczak]

I don't want you to feel uncomfortable.......that is why I posted the thread in the first place to get feedback. The owners did not ask me to do this......I chose to do this on my own as many of us have debated this behind the scenes!
You mention a list of forums that are free. Tons of ads too. Do any of them actually critique? I have visited most of them so I feel quite comfortable saying they don't.
#1 reason I posted this poll is to see how others felt. Over 85% of the responders feel there should be some limitation although there is disagreement on how long. Should we disregard their thoughts? That is all I was trying to point out and I hope some of the 1000+ viewers chime in.

[Doug Schurman]

Hi Roman,

You have made a couple comments here I wanted to respond to.

I know of no company that allows you to use their product for free indefinitely.

Actually there are lots of companies. All the major TV networks do. Many services on the Internet do too, and they are not all pure informational either. Logmein.com has a free service to connect to any PC on the internet for no charge. Of course they also have paid versions too. They must think the more exposure they get to free users the more their paid users will grow.

You mention a list of forums that are free. Tons of ads too. Do any of them actually critique? I have visited most of them so I feel quite comfortable saying they don't.

I visit three Bird Photography sites
birdforum.org
juzaforum.com
BPN

All three have critiques. Certainly I would say BPN has the highest level Photographers on average of the three. However the other sites have their strengths too.

Regards,
Doug

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Doug,
You mention the major TV companies. If we had the ads they do.....the forum would look something like this: 16 minutes of responses or viewing time.....and 14 minutes of ads for every half hour......don't think we would be around too long!.....although I do think the owners group would be ecstatic at the revenue stream!

In all seriousness.....How much do the other forums charge and what is the participation? I know the 2 others major nature forums charge more. I will check the others out.

[Desmond Chan]

Maybe even several, like Hillary, keep getting drawn back to check results like so many moths drawn to the flame!

Then each of them have to do it about from 25 to 38 times

[Desmond Chan]

I don't like this poll if you ask me...for obvious reason but, seems like a trend is coming...

What everyone seems to be missing is that a large part of the income potential for a site like this comes for advertising. Big visitor numbers drives advertising desireability and value. Next, is the sale of products, the promotion of books and of workshops. Again, the more accessible the site the higher the sales are likely to be. Membership fees are likely a very small part of the money flowing into this site.

Bob is correct !!

Apparently, this thread together with the previous "haven't you learned anything here... shame on you not paying...it's only $20" thread tell us that some here are not happy about the non-paid participants.

If it were up to me (then of course not am I crazy?), if I still want both paid and non-paid participants, here's what I would do:

1. Non-paid members are restricted to accessing and participating (read and post) BPN Community and Discussion forums (except Buy & Sell) only. No time limit.

2. New, non-paid participants could post 20 (or whatever number the management feels comfortable and add time limit if necessary) images for critiques and no more participating (see, post or respond) until becoming paid-members.

Reason for 1 is to maintain traffic. You need that to attract advertizers. Reason for 2 is, as you would agree, because the critique forums and the educational materials here are the main selling point of this site and valued by most if not all participants.

Something I've noticed: Chas a week or so ago posted a question here. The responses he got here was and still is: 4, including his own. Chas posted the same question to the other paid-site (you know the one that charges more). How many responses he got on the first day? When I checked and that was not the end of that day yet: 10. Now is 44. As far as I can tell, this is not an isolated example. Another reason for 1 above.

And, why didn't members here answer Chas's questions, huh?

And that other paid site, they don't mind featuring an image from non-paid member either

You don't just compete with other paid sites, you compete with free sites as well.

Should internet be free? I don't know. But last time I checked, many good information could still be obtained from the internet, including Roger's own

Oh, we all still have to pay for accessing the internet.

Price is a factor in deciding whether to buy or not, but it's not the major factor in a lot of time.

Like it or not, that's it for now.

[Hilary Hann]

I don't really mind the free participants, especially if they bring knowledge and enthusiasm to the sub-forums. Likely these participants will end up becoming members anyway. What annoys me more is the number (paid and unpaid) who post images but never or rarely comment on anyone else's image. I know it can be difficult but if you can see that someone is trying hard to comment there is a lot of good will engendered. Not much can be done about that, except the repeat offenders tend to have very few comments after a while.

[Bob Decker]

I promised I was going to back out of this discussion but I guess I'm one of those moths being drawn to the flame!

I don't like this poll if you ask me...for obvious reason but, seems like a trend is coming...



Bob is correct !!

Apparently, this thread together with the previous "haven't you learned anything here... shame on you not paying...it's only $20" thread tell us that some here are not happy about the non-paid participants.

I don't understand that mentality. When I chose to spend my $20 it was for the convenience of uploading images here rather than hosting them elsewhere. Easier image posting and it took a little load off my website's server. There are a few other perks but that was my primary motivation. If others don't mind linking the images they post I'm alright with that.

If it were up to me (then of course not am I crazy?), if I still want both paid and non-paid participants, here's what I would do:

1. Non-paid members are restricted to accessing and participating (read and post) BPN Community and Discussion forums (except Buy & Sell) only. No time limit.

2. New, non-paid participants could post 20 (or whatever number the management feels comfortable and add time limit if necessary) images for critiques and no more participating (see, post or respond) until becoming paid-members.

Reason for 1 is to maintain traffic. You need that to attract advertizers. Reason for 2 is, as you would agree, because the critique forums and the educational materials here are the main selling point of this site and valued by most if not all participants.

There's nothing in a "pay to play" scheme that benefits me as far as I can see. It my actually be harmful. How you ask? The larger the number of participants the better the odds of drawing comments on images from them and, I'd expect, the greater number of posts being added. For members trying to learn that's more opportunities to do so. For those pros trying to sell workshops, webinars and such it equates to a larger audience to try to sell to.

Now if you may be thinking that second aspect, larger audience for the pros, isn't particularly beneficial for you as a novice or amateur. Simple question for you, who's input and advice do you think is more valuable? That coming from other amateurs or that coming from pros? If your answer is pros then maybe doing things to attract them is beneficial to you.

Something I've noticed: Chas a week or so ago posted a question here. The responses he got here was and still is: 4, including his own. Chas posted the same question to the other paid-site (you know the one that charges more). How many responses he got on the first day? When I checked and that was not the end of that day yet: 10. Now is 44. As far as I can tell, this is not an isolated example. Another reason for 1 above.

And, why didn't members here answer Chas's questions, huh?

And that other paid site, they don't mind featuring an image from non-paid member either

I've noticed that myself. Responses to posts here seem to be much fewer and farther between than on that other site. There also seems to be more of a clique mentality here than there. It feels like if you're not part of the "crowd" your posts tend to be ignored. Even on a tiny little site that's shy on members like Wildlifesouth.net posts seem to draw a larger number of comments. Perhaps there's a bit of an elitest mentality here? Would that also explain the seeming dislike of "freeloaders" who aren't paying their $20 per year?

You don't just compete with other paid sites, you compete with free sites as well.

Should internet be free? I don't know. But last time I checked, many good information could still be obtained from the internet, including Roger's own

Oh, we all still have to pay for accessing the internet.

Price is a factor in deciding whether to buy or not, but it's not the major factor in a lot of time.

Like it or not, that's it for now.

The comparison was made between this site and TV and the question raised if we'd mind more advertising. I don't find the banner ads on that other site at all annoying. So no, I wouldn't mind additional ads here. I pay a much larger fee for access to a huge wedding & portrait photography forum portrait. The amount of advertising there is greater than on either of the nature sites being discussed. But there's another difference too. That site is for professional photographers only. It's a place where they pay to openly dicuss business issues and ideas. Definately a different environment than a forum open to all.

More food for thought.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Let's keep it civil gentlemen!

I have been a moderator her on the site for over 3 years now. I posted this poll mostly because of what Hilary commented on......people posting images but not commenting on others......so I was wondering if this was due mostly to participants or members. Put yourself in my shoes.......would you want to comment on someones images who wants your opinion yet doesn't feel they want to become a member for a prolonged time and become part of the community? Mods don't get paid for this! We are volunteers. My time is becoming more and more precious and scarce......yet it still gives me satisfaction in helping others by critiquing.

To me, participating in the forums and not becoming a member of the community shows disrespect to the moderators. Why should they spend their time critiquing those who only "use" the site and don't want to become part of the community?

Perhpas this is a topic for another thread.

[P-A. Fortin]

I think you can be a part of this community without paying the 20$ (as much as you can pay the 20$ without being involved). To me these are 2 different issues.

As of members who want your opinion without becoming part of the community, this is a tricky one.

Let's come up with an example: me :eek:. Photography-wise, I suck. Normal, I started 6 months ago. Hence, I made 2-3 posts in the ETL forum, got very useful comments and critiques there and just reading around these forums has lead to obvious improvement into my technique so far. Yet, at this point, I would definitely not feel comfortable to come out and critique the work of other much more experienced photographers. I could easily get a "Come back when you make sense" reply from them. Obviously this would not happen here since people are too nice for that, but you get the idea. So instead I try to get involved some otherway, for example in this discussion (though I have the feeling this is about to turn into a jello-wresting contest). But these are small isolated opportunities for me at this point to get involved. The whole point being: I can make a very good use of the comments and critiques on this forum, being a beginner. However, before I get to the point where I feel comfortable and have opportunities to get more involved, this will take some time. Maybe alot of time. In my humble opinion, much more than just 3 months.

Let's pretend there is a 3 months restriction before you have to pay. Most likely, newcomers such as I would run away before they get to the point where they feel like/realize this 20$ investment would be worth it. It takes a bit of time and courage to go on and post something you know is crappy to get advice from much more experienced people. If you feel from the start you are some kind of an "outsider", being a non-paying member, this might be enough to scare the new guy away to other forums/communities. Which might cut the supplies of fresh blood to this community and maybe even turn it into a close circle of highly experienced photographs simply "high-fiving" each other whenever they post their pictures. I doubt the result would be that harsh, but this is definitely not what you would be aiming for here, right?

I have been reading these forums a bit for over 3 months before I actually created an account so I could start posting. Most users would simply have created an account and waited to see what happens. Just look at how many users have 0 posts and yet are active on a daily basis. What if you cut the possibility for them to post before they even actually made their first post? And how would you handle people creating a new account under a false name every 3 months just to bypass the rule?

I understand how you may feel regarding the involvement of some members. However I believe the success of this community lies in the voluntary involvement of their members, not into forcing them to participate or go away.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Good points P.A. ! I do think the participation is another issue......and one that should be addressed in another thread. If you look at the top of each forum....there is a sticky adressing your fear of critiquing. Perhaps we should make that more visible?

[P-A. Fortin]

Nha, it is visible enough. I did read it. Even with it though, it is still a "mental step" to dive in the first time and put your images to "the test".

And at this point, I fear more of writing a critique than receiving one

I don't mind someone telling me that my picture is crappy, as long as it comes with an explanation that makes sense. This way I'll learn something and get better, which is the whole idea behind this.

However as of now, due to my lack of experience, I would fear criticizing someone's picture because I am not sure my explanation would make sense

2 different "fears of critique"


As of participation, maybe for another thread indeed, but while at it... I do not know if vBulletin (the forum software) would also such requirement, but maybe it would be possible to require a minimum "posts to picture" ratio. For example, you would need 5 or 10 regular posts to be allowed to post a picture. However I guess it would be complicated to enforce, and would especially make moderators' life a nightmare since I guess some people would just post random short message ("Good idea [insert name here]!", "Thumbs up") just to fit the requirement.

But yeah... discussion in another thread.