What do members think of the new web site & forum structure?

To clarify my role, no, I'm not a member of the admin.
Quite some time ago I contacted admin about my concerns for the future of DPREvived. I looked at what was working on the site and what wasn't. On the basis of that, I suggested a plan for the redevelopment of the site and an approach to recruiting new members. As Arvo says (and I have always said) it may not be the best plan, but a plan was needed if we are to survive. If any one could come up with another plan, that was/is fine by me.
Here we are.

As I note in my message of a moment ago to Arvo/Ted, I'm not a member of the admin.
In my other life, I'm part owner of a business and we have a website. That website successfully targets search engines. The challenge at Dprevived/The Photo is entirely different.
Imagine you are a photographer who knows nothing at all about us. What words/terms/phrases can you imagine you might use would result in a link to us? Believe me, I've tried. We are too small to register. All the terms a photographer is likely to use for a search will get responses, but they wont be to us. We understood this.
Instead, we have a plan that is initially built on referrals rather than search engines. For this to work we need a place to refer people to. That place has to give an overview of what we are about, what makes us different, and has immediate access to some of our features so we can be checked out. It is generally felt that when people look at a new site for the first time, they either get interested and engage with two clicks (max of three) or they don't return.
dprevived.com/ is our main site in that it is the Misago forum platform on which everything here depends. It is not a place that can spells out what we are about and it doesn't make it easy and intuitive to find anything that might engage a newcomer.
www.the-photo.org/ is designed to serve a purpose at this point of time. Note that "at this point of time." Its purpose is to be a landing point for potential members who will be referred here. It asserts that we are image focussed, (as distinct from a site where people go to discuss gear). It has shortcuts into the main index so things that might be of interest to a newcomer, such as B&W photography, can immediately be seen and checked out. You will see Street and Abstract Experimental there as well. These don't have direct links as yet but we think they will shortly.
The plan for the "referral" stage, once we think everything is ready to go (and it isn't yet) is likely to take a few months. That's' where the "at this point of time" is relevant. Beyond that time, a different kind of landing page for a different purpose will probably be needed.

If you will look around, there are quite a few websites offering picture sharing and discussing. It is very competitive area and to compete one have to offer at least same features if not more. No offense, but what this site have to offer? To create and manage gallery you have to go through admin. When posting pictures, the screen is clattered with annoying thumbnails. Challenges have to be anonymous and theme based. You do not compare architectural images with images of dragonfly. It is not even like compare apples to oranges. When scrolling through pictures in the intermediate screen, it scrolls through all pictures in all posts. Now about discussing gear. If you want to take good pictures you better know your gear, because technical aspect is not less important than composition. Of course I am talking about myself, but for me discussing gear is not less interesting than sharing pictures.
So, with all due respect, you have to have something to offer if you want to attract more participants.

I agree that people want to discuss gear. We are tool late to that party. There already exist sites with years of databases on gear and large user groups for brands. Anyone who wants gear info wasn't going to be joining us, they would go to the biggest repositories of that info they could find because there, they have a better chance of getting the info they need. Neither was it likely that we could spend years building up a data base of our own to meet that need. We had to find a different path. When I have a tech question or issue with my Sony gear, this isn't where I come for answers.
Neither was anyone else. When we looked through the site to see what was working, what was attracting conversations, it wasn't gear. The gear genres could go months, sometimes over a year, without a post. Imagine a new Nikon owner who goes to our website, clicks Nikon and finds almost zilch. Would you sign on?
We needed arrivals to bump into plenty of fresh activity and the gear/genre based forums weren't doing it.
What was working though was the Weekly threads. The no brand, no theme Weekly C&C., though your Eyes and The Collegial etc were keeping the site alive. The message was clear. The weekly format ensured that new posts got responses. It ensured that discussions remained fresh. The decision was made to encourage more weekly threads. Compare the activity level now in The Weekly Landscape or B&W with the posts that were made previously with genres.
What is being done doesn't preclude gear discussion. "How was that shot done" "How can I improve this" all lead to tech discussion within a thread but it will be based on an image rather than gear in general.
Technical and Open Discussions are still there for those that have a need for them, but check the extent to which they are used. Can you see that as a basis for expanding our site?
What we have to offer is what we are doing in the weekly threads. We are attempting to build more detailed analysis and discussion of the images. Yes, it isn't easy. Something more insightful than ticking "like " is what we have in mind.

Yes, it's why we are initially looking at how we might get referrals.

I still don't think you understood what I was suggesting. I will leave it at that. Hopefully Arvo's idea of tags will prove beneficial. Otherwise I have some ideas.

OK David. Fair question. I'll try try to answer your last point.
I assume we are all accepting that we need to get members or go under. For all the reasons that everyone has already scratched their heads over, we don't believe a search engine based strategy will work for us.
We intend a three stage recruitment strategy based on referrals.
Stage one is simple and obvious. It's really more of a testing out of the system. When we are confident the pages are doing what we want them to do, we'll be looking to current members to join us in reaching out to personal photography contacts we all may have.
Stage two is more complex. We will be targeting selected bloggers to give us some mention.. The assumption is that bloggers already have contact with numbers of photographers. We aren't competing against bloggers and we think we can make a case for them to do this.
Stage three may never be attempted and whether or not we try it will depend on what happens with one and two. I don't wish to discuss it at this time.

Looking at a couple AI:

Pretending to be someone who just bought a Sigma camera:

Asked "In photographic fora (forums) how many are specifically for Sigma cameras?"

Current ChatGPT: DPrevived is not found, nor is The-Photo; it found DPReview.
Older Open AI Gpt 3.5: DPrevived is found, but not The-Photo; says DPReview is "shut down".

Not if potential members don't use AI.

I asked another ... hix.ai/home?id=cm8kukq9n1dza1064r3df1hdl

No mention of dprevived at all, let alone the-photo.

Assuming again that potential members don't use AI, no loss there to the team (your good selves and Mike).

My question would be "do potential members use AI?"

How is that going? Will the membership be consulted about that?

Indeed they will. As one of the steps, we will be asking all members to think about their photo friends/contacts. Messages will be coming about this in the not too distant.

Good to hear, Mike!

Hi all,

I keep checking this forum from time to time, although I'm not participating. Not very helpful to keep the site living, I know. But I have a few comments regarding the forum/site, that maybe you can find interesting.

The landing page (the-photo), on which you want n'es users to arrive, must be attractive. Really. And currently it's not. Having links to lively threads is excellent, but it looks like in the 90's. I remember a thread from a while back discussing its design, with very interesting suggestions (and I took part in that discussion), eventually completely ignored.

One - the main - reason I look at photo forums is for constructive comments & critiques. One thing that makes me leave is the feeling that it is not welcome or a common practice. Pictures posted here got very little to no comments at all. And there were even official posts saying that critiques are not welcome unless the title includes "C&C" (or similar), which is really too bad in my opinion. I can understand (barely) that people don't want their pictures modified, but constructive discussion and critique is the point of a forum (Is it ? A forum is not just another online gallery ?). And that is missing in most (if not all) forums I've seen. To the point that some forums have a paid section where you can have comments from experienced photographers. But there is the important question : what is the purpose of dprevived.com/the-photo.org ?

On this subject, the weekly critique thread is great. But, in its current form, it is extremely hard to follow if you're not reading it every day. It would be much better if all comments about one picture were grouped, with one thread per picture, or, as asked by some users, a "threaded view" instead of the current "flat view".

Eventually, as said by other members in this thread, keeping a direct access to common photo genres (landscape, b&w, street...) is essential, as some users are "specialized", and there must be some activity in these pages besides the weekly thread.

Best,
Ben

Thanks for the input. I couldn't agree more with you when you say "A forum is not just another online gallery ?). And that is missing in most (if not all) forums I've seen. To the point that some forums have a paid section where you can have comments from experienced photographers."
That's exactly out starting point. It's difficult. There is no point at all in The Photo copying what other sites do. There are plenty of them already established and they have extensive databases that can be searched for info that this site cannot compete with.
A niche was seen in analyzing and discussing images rather than gear. The sections of this site that got involvement were the sections where the photo itself became the topic. We wanted to try to develop a site where discussion of an image was more insightful than the "wow that is sharp", "great colours" or a "like" tick that is usually found as a response to posted photos.
The Landing/web page tries to say this. (more on the Landing page later.)
You are right about the problem created by lack of threaded view and we are very aware of it. It makes the kinds of conversations we want difficult. Following detailed discussion becomes complex and time consuming. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no available forum platform has threaded view. The only forum I know that has it, developed their own platform. It's a chicken and egg situation. If we had a lot more members, it would be easier to justify the work needed to develop a threaded view of our own. On the other hand, we need threaded view to satisfactorily implement the kind of discussion we would like.
Hopefully, in time, threaded view may be able to be done. If you know of a forum platform that enables threaded fiew, we'd love to know of it.
Re requests not to modify posted images. I've been part of the Weekly C&C group for many years. Editing posts as part of C&C discussion was always welcomed. Many of us got into the habit of requesting "no edits" as a defence against the technique of a troll who almost wrecked this site. The admin has succesfully been able to block him. We could look at discussing this further with members.

If you click "Have your photos Critiqued" you will access a forum where you have a choice. Individual shots, or a completely new C&C regular thread, if you wish, can be started up. You don't have to use the weekly threads id that is your preference. The same thing can be done through Image discussions and Showcase. No one has to use the Weekly Threads. However, the Weekly threads were set up for a reason. We had genre based forums previously. The weekly concept hugely increases a posts chance of getting feedback. The Weeklies cover most genres where we had activity. we still have locations where a post on any subject at all can be made. If a site as based on genres, it can go months without a response. We needed activity and engagement with members.

The Landing page. It looks old fashioned. Agreed. At this point we were working with what we had. it is serving a somewhat different purpose for us than most web pages. It isn't a page we expect newcomers to arrive at by accident. We intend using it as a second point of call. ie, people arriving at the page will already know something about us and this page is really just to get them directly into parts of the forums that might engage them. The links to the lively threads is the critical bit. Once we have finished our plans for membership recruitment, another landing page may be developed.

Your question "But there is the important question : what is the purpose of dprevived.com/the-photo.org ?" sure is the important question and it worries me. Have you read through the statements on www.the-photo.org/. I really want to know and would very much appreciate what you have to say on this. The page didn't ebanble you to see our statements on what we do? The mesage about what we are trying to do isn't clear? Other?

Thanks
Mike

Arvo,

If threaded view is not an option (and to be honest threaded view is not perfect either), maybe the weekly thread could be used as a "gallery" of photos proposed for critique, and each photo would have its own thread in the same forum category ? I imagine that every participant would start one thread fr the discussion, and simultaneously make a single post in the weekly thread including the picture and thread link ? And this post could be updated when new versions of the picture are submitted ?

Or the weekly thread could be replaced with a gallery of currently discussed pictures from individual threads, that would permanently remain as a category header ?

Maybe that's not optimal, just thinking.

Mike,

When clicking on "have your photo critiqued" you land on a forum page with only weekly threads. This does not suggest the possibility to post a thread for a single picture, although nothing prevents it.

I'm not saying that weeklies should disappear, as they are indeed the most active discussions. It's just a matter of readability / comfort.

What do you mean about the statements on the-photo.org ? The "our focus" section at the bottom ? It's not very specific. The discussion of picture purpose / art / provoked response is interesting, but is that defining the-photo.org, and if so, how does that translate into the site organisation/design ? For example, if engaging (serious ?) discussion is the central point, why is the first link about "showcase your photos" (generally the kind of place where comments are scarce and not always appreciated) or why is there a link for the "Sunday cat" threads (cats are already all over the web) ?
The forum info in the "about us" page from the top menu ? I understand that some emphasis is put on the pictures themselves (thereby probably trying to exclude purely gear-oriented topics), but the next sentence is only about storge space. There is an interesting mention of education in there, the reason why Bob created this community.

Maybe the landing page could show better what you believe is important. Could we imagine having a few thumbnails of pictures awaiting critique beside the link, that would probably increase visibility for some neglected posts (e.g. to be chosen by an admin, or the latest posts with less than 2 comments) ? Same thing for the collegial show, etc (without overcrowding the front page, so maybe linking slightly less posts/categories) ?