[Stoner]

The photo forum is starting to look like a collection images gathered from the Internet rather than the member's contribution to photography.
Out of 30 threads ( default setting) on the first page
17 have nothing to do with photos members have taken or own .
1 of them is to say hello.
The rest seem to be images of interest.

I'm not trying to argue a definitive rule here, but I am wondering about the role of the forum as it's shifting away from personal photography to a forum of links to interesting topics and images.

Perhaps the people that insist on flooding the forum with linkage to what catches their eye..........would focus their efforts into one general thread under their own name.......like for instance....Tom's interests.....or post in Random?

[Cookiegal]

I think you make a good point Jack. That is certainly not what the forum was intended for. I will add a sticky at the top defining the purpose of that particular forum.

[Stoner]

Thank you

[Cookiegal]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Thank you

You're welcome.

[lotuseclat79]

Hi Cookiegal,

I must submit an objection to Jack's indirect attack on my posts in the Photo Album without so much as a Guideline in the Rules, and no open debate or even consultation from Mike Cermak whom owns this web site.

I "resemble" Jack's approach to solving problems - not very transparent Jack!

I demand an open discussion on the matter - not, Jack being prosecutor, Cookiegal's word on original intent (not documented anywhere), and Mike not being involved is what is arguably Jack's taking something away (that he thinks are his to complain about when there are not rules) from a member's enjoyment in photographs - from whomever takes them!

Jack has an issue with something (I don't know what) and thinks it is me - and shows his intent by taking out his perverse objection in indirect ways that are not without flaws in the process of making a valid determination on the matter before us. Please note Jack's follow up in the Photos Album Forum after my post there today.

It is as if Jack is targeting me - am I in your crosshairs Jack? What are you so upset about that you would want to do this to me - and without so much as a PM!

Why not ask the other posters in the forum how they feel about the issue? Take a poll, or just let Mike decide how he sees the matter - that is good enough for me, and I should not be falted by Jack or anyone for lack of a guideline!

-- Tom

[Cookiegal]

I thought it was pretty clear in the description of that forum which reads:

Share your digital pictures with everyone!

and therefore didn't need to be discussed. This is not something that would be in the rules, it's a forum category with a description of what the forum is intended for. If you want to have that changed and broadened to include photos of every nature and from any source then yes, this would be the place to discuss that.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi Cookiegal,

I must submit an objection to Jack's indirect attack on my posts in the Photo Album without so much as a Guideline in the Rules, and no open debate or even consultation from Mike Cermak whom owns this web site.

I "resemble" Jack's approach to solving problems - not very transparent Jack!

I demand an open discussion on the matter - not, Jack being prosecutor, Cookiegal's word on original intent (not documented anywhere), and Mike not being involved is what is arguably Jack's taking something away (that he thinks are his to complain about when there are not rules) from a member's enjoyment in photographs - from whomever takes them!

Jack has an issue with something (I don't know what) and thinks it is me - and shows his intent by taking out his perverse objection in indirect ways that are not without flaws in the process of making a valid determination on the matter before us. Please note Jack's follow up in the Photos Album Forum after my post there today.

It is as if Jack is targeting me - am I in your crosshairs Jack? What are you so upset about that you would want to do this to me - and without so much as a PM!

Why not ask the other posters in the forum how they feel about the issue? Take a poll, or just let Mike decide how he sees the matter - that is good enough for me, and I should not be falted by Jack or anyone for lack of a guideline!

-- Tom

I must submit an objection to Jack's indirect attack on my posts in the Photo Album without so much as a Guideline in the Rules, and no open debate or even consultation from Mike Cermak whom owns this web site.

Attack?
This is the suggestions forum, Tom, and the Photo forum was not looking much like a forum of photographs.
Your example is the most numerous.

I "resemble" Jack's approach to solving problems - not very transparent Jack!

I really don't know what you mean, Tom.

I demand an open discussion on the matter - not, Jack being prosecutor

Tom....all I did was post a suggestion.

Jack has an issue with something (I don't know what) and thinks it is me - and shows his intent by taking out his perverse objection in indirect ways that are not without flaws in the process of making a valid determination on the matter before us.

That's childish, Tom, and I posted no personal comment as you did.
True, the HDR images you posted were for the most part an abomination and I'm not ashamed to point out their flaws.

It is as if Jack is targeting me - am I in your crosshairs Jack? What are you so upset about that you would want to do this to me - and without so much as a PM!

Tom......in actuality,you are the target because you have flooded that forum with links to images at other web sites.
RedOak and Fidelista have done it too, but as far as I know, kept them to one thread, each.

I did make the suggestion of posting such interests of an individual , in one thread. Is that offensive to you?

[LauraMJ]

I have to agree that the forums are self-explanatory. The forum description is pretty clear that it is supposed to be member's personal photos. Since RedOak and Fidelista have each had a thread with various web photos in it, I would be okay if Tom wanted to do the same with images that are not photos he himself took or owns. However, that forum has always been for non-web-based photos and I think it needs to stay that way for the most part.

[JohnWill]

I'm going to guess that Mike thinks what Karen thinks if he knows what's good for him.

[DaveA]

This is why I no longer waste my time in going there, as most are nothing but links to other's photos.
A lot I have seen in emails that are sent around.

[TechGuy]

As the forum description indicates, it was initially designed for people to share photos that they have taken -- in fact, for legal reasons, you probably can't post just any photo from the web anyway (not without some restrictions and attribution, at the very least)... I don't mind if there's a few threads in there that are sort of "off topic" but the main purpose of that forum is to share photos that folks here have taken or images they have created.

[Fidelista]

Since the aviation photo thread I created was mentioned , I plead guilty !.
I have only a few old photos of my own posted there . I have even posted links to web videos , which is clearly not the purpose of the forum .
I do have a feeble defense , and a suggestion for others .
I created the thread just for enjoyment of aviation fans , and esp those who enjoy fine --or even humorous photos . The original idea was just fine aviation photography , I thought it best be put there ,but it has strayed off into aviation in general . My idea was that when someone was waiting for tech help , they might enjoy the photos that I enjoy. If ask , I will cease to post , no problem .
If not , this is my suggestion .
For photo's that have not been taken by member , the thread have the word "web' in the title so people can avoid them if looking for members personal work . This is what I did originally, for that reason .
Another thing is , voluntarily limit the number of threads . If I had several threads on different aspects of aviation { web based photos } I could be pushing some members threads off of page 1. and those viewing would have to search for what is really the purpose of the forum.
Guyser and many others post extremely fine work , and it should be seen ! , not covered up by web based stuff.
So I would suggest that members limit themselves to one thread that is web based photos-- its enough for the photo forum . Plenty of stuff can be posted in it . And , it be labeled as web based .

If my thread is deemed inappropriate , or bothers anyone , I need to know and will let it die , or ..it could be moved to random .
I just thought it was right place to put it because the subject was photography --- not any specific subject about aviation , or I would have put it in random .
>f

[LauraMJ]

I don't mind if a member wants to have one thread of web-based photos that they find interesting, or that might illustrate a technique, etc. So long as there is only that one thread for that member and they keep their web-based photos confined to that.

[Cookiegal]

Yup, what she said.

[dotty999]