Posted by Winnie Ho on December 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Just noticed there are zero images in the anonymous gallery. How many of you out there post in this gallery? I will admit to not posting here, but from time to time, come to check it out. The moderators out a lot of work into maintaining forums, work that often goes unnoticed. I recall when a thread calling for anonymous was posted on this forum.. Has the interest burnt out?
Posted by Kent Mearig on December 5, 2010 at 2:58 AM
I remember being excited about the potential in an anonymous gallery, but even from day one, the participation was too low to make it particularly useful as an outlet. If you're used to having 150-400 viewers for your posts, it's hard to find the motivation to place an image where it's likely to have less the half that many people see it.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 5, 2010 at 8:03 AM
It is truly a shame that this posting feature is not used more often, especially considering the effort put forth by Varina and Darwin in their comments.
Jim, I think it may be more effective to allow users to post anonymously in the existing galleries rather than having a separate/dedicated one. I suspect many users have their favorite forums where they are used to posting.
Guy
Posted by Tom Nevesely on December 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM
I think Guy hit the nail on the head. I think being allowed to post in any regular gallery anonymously would be the way to go.
Posted by Varina Patel on December 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM
As one of the moderators for the anonymous gallery, I have to agree with Guy. Although the idea was well-received at first, I think that a general lack of participation has made the anonymous gallery relatively useless when it comes to good critiques. I try to post a thorough critique of every image in the gallery - but most images ended up with no more than 3 to 5 critiques, and it took weeks to get that many. If you can post an image in another gallery and get that many critiques in a single day, what is the advantage of posting in the anonymous gallery?
Don't get me wrong, I would be sad to see the gallery go - but I don't think it's adding much value for the artists who do post their images anonymously. At the risk of losing the gallery entirely, I think that the best solution would be to allow anonymous posting in the existing galleries - as Guy suggested. That way, artists can post in the forums they follow regularly, and they can get the volume of critiques they deserve.
Jim - if you do close down the anonymous gallery, let me know if there is something else I can do to help out around here. I would be very sad to go.
I'm glad to see this discussion taking place. It's overdue.
Varina
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM
Varina, you have mail.
In the mean time, I will check into Guy's excellent suggestion.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 5, 2010 at 12:07 PM
What Guy said. We should also have guessing contests on the anonymous posters, and the person who gets the most correct guesses wins a new Caddy
Posted by David Rogers on December 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM
I understand why some might want to post anonomously. Me - I will never use it no matter where you can use it. I would rather have people know who they are talking to when then they me how bad my photos are.
FWIW, I wouldn't draw any broad conclusions about why the gallery is so underutilized without something approaching objective supporting evidence. It may well be that it's largely a function of inertia, as Guy implies. Then again, it may not; this may play only a minor role. (For instance, it's possible that a substantial minority, if not an outright majority, of NPN members aren't even aware that the gallery exists or what its purpose is.)
In any event, my point is that rather than speculating on the whys of the situation, I'd be inclined to try to verify or debunk intuition. Some sort of on-line meta-survey would go a long way towards producing an evidence-based understanding of the problem.
I think Kerry's idea regarding conducting a survey is a good one.
--P
Posted by Jay Patel on December 5, 2010 at 8:40 PM
FWIW, I wouldn't draw any broad conclusions about why the gallery is so underutilized without something approaching objective supporting evidence.
While you cant draw conclusion about why the gallery is underutilized we can (atleast I come to that conclusion) draw a conclusion that the gallery is underutilized. That being said I like Guy's suggestion.
While you cant draw conclusion about why the gallery is underutilized we can (atleast I come to that conclusion) draw a conclusion that the gallery is underutilized.
Of course. I'm simply suggesting that the best route to determining what to do is understanding why it's underutilized. If the assumptions about the whys are wrong--but acted upon nonetheless--the "fix" may cause at least as many new problems as it solves old ones,which is obviously counterproductive.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on December 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM
I preferred the old system where there was only one anonymous image each week and it was posted in the appropriate gallery.
Posted by Winnie Ho on December 6, 2010 at 6:16 AM
I feel obliged to comment seeing as I started this. Just realized I asked the wrong question as those who post in anonymous would probably like the remain anonymous. Although I do not post there, I can see how this appeals to many in case one feels that their identify contributes to critique bias. I wonder if this applies most to more established fotogs who receive high numbers of favorable comments. all I can say that the quality of the moderator critiques is something I appreciate and can learn from too, so I hope there is some way it can proceed to everyone's benefit. Thanks for responding to this thread.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 6, 2010 at 11:52 AM
My take on this is based on the historical events that lead to the conclusion that being able to post "anonymously" would be beneficial. It went like this;
1. There were observations that some photos got a lot of comments but others did not.
2. That there was a group of members who always seemed to get the most comments.
3. Conclusion - the name attached to the photo could influence the number of comments posted and stripping the name away from the post would help restore equity.
IMO, this is really what's at play;
1. Certain members are extremely good photographers and their photos show it.
2. These talented photographers consistently post exceptional photos (building "name brand" recognition).
3. As long as Internet photo critique forums have existed, good photos get more comments than the not-so-good photos.
4. The same photographers always get the most comments because their work is consistently exceptional!
So, does brand name recognition play a role? Absolutely.
Will stripping away the name of a recognized talented photographer make the photo any less desireable? Only to the extent of the strength of the "name brand recognition." A superb photo is still a superb photo!
Will a not-so-good photo with no name attached get as many comments as a great photo with no name attached? I sincerely doubt it.
At the end of the day (and after the not-insignificant payment has been sent to Dave the Programmer), does the ability to "post anonymously" offer any measureable benefit? I'm still not convinced that it does, but I've kept an open mind (and checkbook) on the matter. That said, I think this experiment (though a worthy one) is not offering the benefit we originally hoped for.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Hmmm, I might replace "exceptional" with "popular", Jim There's a lot of art and music out there that is popular--but i dont think it's that great. Greatness is subjective. On the flip side, theres some truly exceptional art out there that is ignored because it is less accessible to popular tastes--but that doesnt make it any less brilliant IMO. I suspect that was part of the reason people asked for the anonymous option to begin with. Another equally important factor is how much the member participates by commenting his/herself. Im more likely to comment on someones work if theyve commented on mine--its just courtesy or reciprocity. Anonymity would remove that incentive--which is one reason why I never was strongly in favor of the idea in the first place..
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Stan, good points (even though I don't listen to that kind of music).
I agree that hiding the name takes away from the process, not adds to it.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Hmmm, I might replace "exceptional" with "popular", Jim There's a lot of art and music out there that is popular--but i dont think it's that great. Greatness is subjective. On the flip side, theres some truly exceptional art out there that is ignored because it is less accessible to popular tastes--but that doesn't make it any less brilliant IMO.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with Stan's point here. I find autotuned vocals to be extremely repulsive, and yet that is most of what you will hear today on any pop-music. Wretched stuff, but the kids dig it.
But on the other hand, I still think there is a good opportunity for an anonymous post within the primary ESS area. Yes bad photos are gonna get fewer views/comments than good ones, but consistently top tier photographers can get real feedback as can lesser known names without the branding attached. I thought this was a good idea poorly executed. By placing it in the anonymous gallery which nobody visited, the idea was doomed. Leaving posts in their appropriate gallery anonymously would help this process work far better.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 6, 2010 at 4:29 PM
Mel, I'm getting a quote from DTP to do just that.
Posted by Lon Overacker on December 6, 2010 at 5:18 PM
Jim,
If you're scoping out the possibility of being able to check a box and post anonymously in a particular gallery, I would like to suggest the following. If posting anonymously, I think it might be of value to leave off the comments/post numbers. I know not everyone pays attention to that, but one of the reasons I never posted in Anonymous gallery was because with my high number of comments folks might guess it was me. I know early on some folks tried guessing who the poster was anyway. Folks like Stan, Tony and Bill C. might have the same, and the opposite could be true to for those with low comment/post ratios - people would still avoid those image and you would still have the same issue of some images not getting many comments and others getting more.
I certainly understand there are those who think it's just about popularity or those like Jim who might side on exceptionalism. I personally believe more that it's the image that speaks, but I also understand there is a popularity component as well. I am one that benefits from both. Is it because I'm a moderator? post lots of comments(getting reciprocals? or are my images good? I'd like to thinks and you may have your answer, but in my view it's really a combination of one or all those things.
But one could make the case that if it was just popularity, then no matter what I posted they should get a similar amount of comments, right? Well, of the 5 recent images I've posted the one with the most comments has TWICE as many as the one with the least? If it was purely because I was popular, then it would stand to reason that I get pretty much the same number of comments. If one of the images sparks a stronger response to the viewers who comment, then one could argue that it's the quality of the image posted.
Marc's last two posts are another example. Aurora, 80 comments. Green moss, just 32. Clearly, relative to Marc's images and popularity a big difference in number of comments that can only be attributed to the members response to the images, not who posted them.
Stan gets a wide range of responses from the teens to 40's and 50's. I believe the number of comments are image dependent. If it was popularity that Stans' popularity goes up and down like a yo-yo. Stan is still Stan.
There is another variable that doesn't really get talked about much regarding the number of comments some images get/don't get. It's been commented to me or I have heard on a number of occasions, that "I don't want to be negative and if I can't find anything positive to say, I just won't comment," or "I don't feel comfortable telling somebody what's wrong with their picture," or along those lines. In other words, a lot of folks want to comment, but they don't know what to say. I think that contributes a lot to why some images get so few comments.
In the end, I think it just boils down to human social behavior and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to regulate that.
Lon
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 6, 2010 at 7:17 PM
In the end, I think it just boils down to human social behavior and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to regulate that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As the "CFO" of NPN, one of my duties is to spend our membership dollars wisely on site development. I recognize that I do not have a perfect batting average with that, but pumping more membership $$ into anonymous posting features just does not strike me as a good use of resources based on past experience.
I'll wait to hear from DTP and see what will be involved to have anonymous posts appear within the original gallery (with comments/posts numbers stripped out too).
Posted by Scott Fricke on December 6, 2010 at 7:54 PM
My take on this is based on the historical events that lead to the conclusion that being able to post "anonymously" would be beneficial. It went like this;
1. There were observations that some photos got a lot of comments but others did not.
2. That there was a group of members who always seemed to get the most comments.
3. Conclusion - the name attached to the photo could influence the number of comments posted and stripping the name away from the post would help restore equity
If the assumption is that people comment more on "popular"/"more talented" people's photos, then making a post anonymous isn't really helping as all name recognition based comments go away, whether its because that photographer is very good or comments on a lot of other peoples photos. The only way to get true "equity" would be if all photos were anonymous. And no, I'm not suggesting doing this. I think it was a great experiment, but clearly the membership isn't finding value in it and I would agree with your last post that putting more $$ into this is probably not worth it.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 7, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Jim,
Thanks kindly for your consideration of my proposed alternative.
Mel-
Posted by Sarah Marino on December 8, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Most of the comments here are oriented toward the popular/exceptional photographers and what they would get out of the anonymous posting. I take a different view on this topic. As a newer, far less confident photographer, I would feel more comfortable posting images anonymously for a variety of reasons. For example, posting anything in the ESS gallery is very intimidating and I would welcome the opportunity to post photos anonymously because it would allow me to get feedback on my images without feeling so vulnerable.
Thanks for considering the various views on this topic, Jim.
This discussion makes me wish I were exceptional and anonymous.
Pete D.
Posted by Jay Patel on December 10, 2010 at 7:10 AM
At the end of the day (and after the not-insignificant payment has been sent to Dave the Programmer), does the ability to "post anonymously" offer any measureable benefit? I'm still not convinced that it does, but I've kept an open mind (and checkbook) on the matter. That said, I think this experiment (though a worthy one) is not offering the benefit we originally hoped for.
I agree with you on this one. I am not convinced that posting anonymously would be a popular thing to do...or it would provide intended benefits to the members. Certain social human behavious goes realizing the benefits of this feature.
First is the one you pointed out that members such as myself may be posting images to build their "name recognition".
Second is what Lon pointed out that the members may not be comfortable giving negative critiques. I rarely give negative critique on NPN (or any other public site) because I don't know the original intent of why a member posted a photograph...to get recognition or to get a critique?
Third reason may or may not be valid. While Sarah gives a reasoning that she is not comfortable posting in ESS gallery...would a member be comfortable getting lots of negative critiques? Even if they are anonymous? My experience teaching photography tell me that not everyone be able to take the critiques.
Having said that flexibility always makes the site more attractive. So the choice in my opinion comes down to is the flexibility of posting anonymously provide a good RIO?
Discussion
26 repliesWhat do we need to do to generate more interest?
Guy
Don't get me wrong, I would be sad to see the gallery go - but I don't think it's adding much value for the artists who do post their images anonymously. At the risk of losing the gallery entirely, I think that the best solution would be to allow anonymous posting in the existing galleries - as Guy suggested. That way, artists can post in the forums they follow regularly, and they can get the volume of critiques they deserve.
Jim - if you do close down the anonymous gallery, let me know if there is something else I can do to help out around here. I would be very sad to go.
I'm glad to see this discussion taking place. It's overdue.
In the mean time, I will check into Guy's excellent suggestion.
In any event, my point is that rather than speculating on the whys of the situation, I'd be inclined to try to verify or debunk intuition. Some sort of on-line meta-survey would go a long way towards producing an evidence-based understanding of the problem.
Just a thought.
--P
While you cant draw conclusion about why the gallery is underutilized we can (atleast I come to that conclusion) draw a conclusion that the gallery is underutilized. That being said I like Guy's suggestion.
Thanks.
-Jay
Of course. I'm simply suggesting that the best route to determining what to do is understanding why it's underutilized. If the assumptions about the whys are wrong--but acted upon nonetheless--the "fix" may cause at least as many new problems as it solves old ones,which is obviously counterproductive.
1. There were observations that some photos got a lot of comments but others did not.
2. That there was a group of members who always seemed to get the most comments.
3. Conclusion - the name attached to the photo could influence the number of comments posted and stripping the name away from the post would help restore equity.
IMO, this is really what's at play;
1. Certain members are extremely good photographers and their photos show it.
2. These talented photographers consistently post exceptional photos (building "name brand" recognition).
3. As long as Internet photo critique forums have existed, good photos get more comments than the not-so-good photos.
4. The same photographers always get the most comments because their work is consistently exceptional!
So, does brand name recognition play a role? Absolutely.
Will stripping away the name of a recognized talented photographer make the photo any less desireable? Only to the extent of the strength of the "name brand recognition." A superb photo is still a superb photo!
Will a not-so-good photo with no name attached get as many comments as a great photo with no name attached? I sincerely doubt it.
At the end of the day (and after the not-insignificant payment has been sent to Dave the Programmer), does the ability to "post anonymously" offer any measureable benefit? I'm still not convinced that it does, but I've kept an open mind (and checkbook) on the matter. That said, I think this experiment (though a worthy one) is not offering the benefit we originally hoped for.
I agree that hiding the name takes away from the process, not adds to it.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with Stan's point here. I find autotuned vocals to be extremely repulsive, and yet that is most of what you will hear today on any pop-music. Wretched stuff, but the kids dig it.
But on the other hand, I still think there is a good opportunity for an anonymous post within the primary ESS area. Yes bad photos are gonna get fewer views/comments than good ones, but consistently top tier photographers can get real feedback as can lesser known names without the branding attached. I thought this was a good idea poorly executed. By placing it in the anonymous gallery which nobody visited, the idea was doomed. Leaving posts in their appropriate gallery anonymously would help this process work far better.
If you're scoping out the possibility of being able to check a box and post anonymously in a particular gallery, I would like to suggest the following. If posting anonymously, I think it might be of value to leave off the comments/post numbers. I know not everyone pays attention to that, but one of the reasons I never posted in Anonymous gallery was because with my high number of comments folks might guess it was me. I know early on some folks tried guessing who the poster was anyway. Folks like Stan, Tony and Bill C. might have the same, and the opposite could be true to for those with low comment/post ratios - people would still avoid those image and you would still have the same issue of some images not getting many comments and others getting more.
I certainly understand there are those who think it's just about popularity or those like Jim who might side on exceptionalism. I personally believe more that it's the image that speaks, but I also understand there is a popularity component as well. I am one that benefits from both. Is it because I'm a moderator? post lots of comments(getting reciprocals? or are my images good? I'd like to thinks and you may have your answer, but in my view it's really a combination of one or all those things.
But one could make the case that if it was just popularity, then no matter what I posted they should get a similar amount of comments, right? Well, of the 5 recent images I've posted the one with the most comments has TWICE as many as the one with the least? If it was purely because I was popular, then it would stand to reason that I get pretty much the same number of comments. If one of the images sparks a stronger response to the viewers who comment, then one could argue that it's the quality of the image posted.
Marc's last two posts are another example. Aurora, 80 comments. Green moss, just 32. Clearly, relative to Marc's images and popularity a big difference in number of comments that can only be attributed to the members response to the images, not who posted them.
Stan gets a wide range of responses from the teens to 40's and 50's. I believe the number of comments are image dependent. If it was popularity that Stans' popularity goes up and down like a yo-yo. Stan is still Stan.
There is another variable that doesn't really get talked about much regarding the number of comments some images get/don't get. It's been commented to me or I have heard on a number of occasions, that "I don't want to be negative and if I can't find anything positive to say, I just won't comment," or "I don't feel comfortable telling somebody what's wrong with their picture," or along those lines. In other words, a lot of folks want to comment, but they don't know what to say. I think that contributes a lot to why some images get so few comments.
In the end, I think it just boils down to human social behavior and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to regulate that.
Lon
As the "CFO" of NPN, one of my duties is to spend our membership dollars wisely on site development. I recognize that I do not have a perfect batting average with that, but pumping more membership $$ into anonymous posting features just does not strike me as a good use of resources based on past experience.
I'll wait to hear from DTP and see what will be involved to have anonymous posts appear within the original gallery (with comments/posts numbers stripped out too).
If the assumption is that people comment more on "popular"/"more talented" people's photos, then making a post anonymous isn't really helping as all name recognition based comments go away, whether its because that photographer is very good or comments on a lot of other peoples photos. The only way to get true "equity" would be if all photos were anonymous. And no, I'm not suggesting doing this. I think it was a great experiment, but clearly the membership isn't finding value in it and I would agree with your last post that putting more $$ into this is probably not worth it.
Thanks kindly for your consideration of my proposed alternative.
Mel-
Thanks for considering the various views on this topic, Jim.
Pete D.
I agree with you on this one. I am not convinced that posting anonymously would be a popular thing to do...or it would provide intended benefits to the members. Certain social human behavious goes realizing the benefits of this feature.
Having said that flexibility always makes the site more attractive. So the choice in my opinion comes down to is the flexibility of posting anonymously provide a good RIO?
Thanks.
-Jay