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

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) ?

I don't think it is terrible, I think it looks old fashioned. To be functional for our purposes at this time, it needs to do two things.
Get the message about what we do across
Get immediate links to areas likely to interest newcomers. I think we should be looking at Ben's criticisms re the extent to which it gets the message across about what we are about and what makes us different.

Re looking old fashioned. Elsewhere I have suggested that while we are doing our recruiting we should use the most impactful images we have on the page, rather than the auto use of the Photo of the Week. I'm not criticizing POTW but over the last couple of years, our members have posted shots with much more wow factor to various threads, Showcasing them while we are recruiting would help the appearance of the landing page.

Ben's comments are the most useful we have received on these aspects. Thanks Ben. We need to look at them carefully but we need to do it quickly. For reasons I've set out elsewhere, we need to get on with attempting to build numbers asap.
I have to go now. In a couple of hours I'll try to dig in further to what he's saying.

Alan,

This is the message I was thinking about regarding photo critiques:
dprevived.com/t/a-critique-suggestion/6521/

I'll try to find the old thread about the landing page design tomorrow.

Sorry about the 90's comment, I meant no harm and I'll be more careful of my wording.

I suggested ages ago looking around at all the other sites and picking what works.

Just an example:

cameraderie.org/

It's not quite what I would do. Although many seem to like dark theme these days I prefer something in between (theme selector is down the bottom of the page).

The displayed photos are nominated by users and then (I believe) the admins select from the nominations (or it may be a vote count or something)

Importantly, there is a traditional banner including logo and menus.

I think Ben is wondering why the two different urls. It will be confusing and a red flag to many potential visitors.

I don't understand the mechanics of Misago, but if it is so constrictive that it can't have a customized home page built around it, what has it got going for it?

My advice is:

a) Select a forum software that has threaded / flat view options. DPR has it right here - as well as a global user preference, any particular thread can be viewed either way.

b) Select a forum software that doesn't force the design of the home page. Allow the installation maintainers to design their own with their own banners / menu structure / customised elements etc.

c) Same goes for any other subsequent pages. Easily customisable themes / elements (elements being headings, buttons etc.)

Some forum software already have a large selection of themes available out of the box. It's quite possible that one would suit an image heavy site.

d) It has been mentioned before that dprevived isn't a good domain name going forward. The-Photo.org is good. dprevived doesn't suggest anything about the intent / function of the site other than to previous DPR users.

e) The displayed images in posts need to be front and centre. Displayed as large as possible on the viewing device allowing for poster details, text areas and borders etc.

I have a problem here. This is a very important discussion that I want to be involved in. Unfortunately, I have family arriving from interstate and I am going to have very limited online time until next Monday.

Re the look of the landing page. I think it looks old fashioned. I don't think it looks terrible.
This is the important bit. It isn't a regular website page that is designed for immediate impact and with an eye to SEO. The page is designed so that people we send to it get information about us will understand what we do and then explore the links. If it does that, it works for us.
The appearance is largely cosmetic and I don't think it is a priority for us. But for the record, check the following list of photography blogs and click on a few of them. I'm talking about overall appearance here, not the operation of each site. It is highly important to remember that our landing site has a quite different purpose to these sites.
detailed.com/photography-blogs/
Try this one.
www.photographyaxis.com/blog/
Look at the background, the link boxes and fonts.

The most important things right now that Ben has raised is about our landing page. Does it make clear what we are on about? Does a newbie looking at this page grasp that The Photo is about discussing the images themselves? Can they immediately link to posts and discussion that shows this is so?
If it does, we are fine. If it doesn't, we have a serious problem.

A point I should have thought of much earlier. The thing we are trying to develop that most distinguishes us from other sites, is the depth and quality of the discussion of the images. I genuinely feel that this is happening on The Photo. Should we be making more of a point of this on our landing page and if so, how?

I took a look at the home page.

It is fine in my opinion. I disagree that it looks dated. I find it simple and functional.

Bryan and Ben. I don't think we have a choice about this. We have to use Misago. The whole structure of The Photo is built on Misago. Picking another platform, as I understand it, would mean scrapping everything and starting a brand new website. It simply isn't going to happen.

This page dprevived.com/
is the foundation of the The Photo. It's the framework within which all the forums operate. It is the page all of us who are used to The Photo use as our landing page , usually by clicking on the Threads button at the top and this lets us see what new posts have been made.
It's meaningless for new arrivals who know nothing about us.
That's where www.the-photo.org/ comes in. It tells what we are about and gives links to the main areas of activity. It isn't Misago. We can assume that any new members we get, once they are at home, will do what everyone else does and use the dprevived.com/ page to login, and participate in the forums.

I think Alan has answered most of the points Ben raised.
I've asked before, but I feel it has to be asked again. It is critical for where we are at. Ben, bless him, is the only person who has given us feedback on this. Sorry to pester you on this Ben, but to clarify...
When you look at www.the-photo.org/ (and this is the critical page we need newcomers to see and take in) do you understand what this site is trying to do? Did you see and open the open the "Our Focus" information at the bottom of the page? If you didn't see or open it, we need to do something about that.
If you did see and open it but the message didn't get across, that's a different kind of problem we have to fix.

Please note. I have edited this post by changing to www.the-photo.org/ in the last paragraph. I had the wrong page link before . I'm going to add another post to this thread in case anyone had already read this and hasn't picked up the edit. Huge apologies.

Please note. I have edited my previous post by changing to www.the-photo.org/ in the last paragraph. I had the wrong page link before . I'm pointing this out with a second post to the thread in case anyone had already read the previous post before the edit was made. Huge apologies.