Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RG's gone for good ?  (Read 22589 times)
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« on: April 22, 2006, 12:20:11 AM »
ReplyReply

It's official, the RG fora will be for paying customers only, non-subscribers won't even be allowed to read .
The wealth of knowledge in the archives, contributed by generous pros,  has been part of the deal.

Read the forum FAQ for details....

You be the judge, can a message board, which is run unlike any other lively and successful internet community, be of any future interest ?
Logged
schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2006, 01:00:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm more than irritated that they see the old content as an asset and will start charging for it too. This input was given for free from former members on a free forum and now it should be sold as a product? Strange ethics...
Logged
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2006, 08:05:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm more than irritated that they see the old content as an asset and will start charging for it too. This input was given for free from former members on a free forum and now it should be sold as a product? Strange ethics...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But once you start to read the old successful threads on the MF forum where some of the experienced and popular members like JRussell, MTucker and others participated, it is now like walking across a graveyard or even worse, all their postings are made anonymous and say "Former member, account closed". They leave the information but won't even tell who gave it for free. It is a shame really.

RG and his moderator were - being the owners - free to procede as they liked to, but I actually think that this was a big mistake.
The contributors was the real value to RG, and by treating some of them like a teacher would treat a "bad pupuil", they litterally chased them away, it doesn't surprise me that this all came to an end quickly.

I personally won't pay for the forum in the future.

regards, Bernie
Logged
cgf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2006, 09:57:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...it is now like walking across a graveyard or even worse, all their postings are made anonymous and say "Former member, account closed". They leave the information but won't even tell who gave it for free. It is a shame really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps the new forum owner should look at rectifying those anonymous postings?

How much weight will be given to lots of anonymous comments by those considering paying for access once their trial period elapses? Does knowing the identity (and industry/professional standing) of the various users impact on the authority of their statements?

Particularly from the new financial viewpoint of the relaunched RG forums, you'd think they would want to maximise their 'asset value'?
Logged
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2006, 11:02:12 AM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 07:51:07 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2006, 11:03:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps the new forum owner should look at rectifying those anonymous postings?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether he does or not (I wont read it then because I will not pay, I must say that I did not like the censorhip and the way the change was handled), the real pity is that the forum as it existed for months is now gone. Many posters who made the attractivity of RG MF forum will not go back there.

A lot of non - posters (like myself) but even several of the regular posters that had to - or chose to - leave said that it was a very special place that is not easy to rebuild somewhere else on another site.

Hopefully there will be similar places in the future.

Bernie
Logged
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2006, 11:13:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps the new forum owner should look at rectifying those anonymous postings?

How much weight will be given to lots of anonymous comments by those considering paying for access once their trial period elapses? Does knowing the identity (and industry/professional standing) of the various users impact on the authority of their statements?

Particularly from the new financial viewpoint of the relaunched RG forums, you'd think they would want to maximise their 'asset value'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Everyone agreed it was Rob and Mike's house and they could paint it any color they wish.

The problem is they painted it pink and yellow and then put it on the market.

In reality, what is the worth of that forum now to a new member, even at a nominal fee of $25?

It just becomes a club of like minded individuals which loses the benefit of open, thought provoking discussion.

Not to be negative, but I personally think the damage is done and the value of that forum is highly diminished.

I thought about writing and asking if they could delete all of my posts, but thinking about it now, once they move to a locked down pay for view model, it will probably have  the same effect.

There was a lot of talk about advertisers pressure and as I have stated, none of us know if that was true.

Still, it's a loss to the manufacturers not to have that type of open, passionate and sometimes heated discussions, because that form of opinion backed by experience can quickly bring out the positives and negatives of the tools and methods we use.

The manufacturers may not have liked some of the public comments, but I bet they read every one of them.


IMO

JR
Logged
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2006, 11:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just posted the following question for Drew and it will be interesting to see what his answer is. Note that just last week if I had posted this question I would have been banned:

RE: Amnesty for banned members

Dear Drew,

My one question is will all the people who were banned in the last couple of months including but not limited to James Russell and Mark Tucker be invited back? (...)

My personal feeling is the RG forum will not be the same without the contributions of those who left. This seems like a good point in time to clean the slate and invite the old crowd back. My joining will be based on the answer to this question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Roland, as far as I know JamesR. left by himself, only M.Tu. seems to have been banned. However as far as I have seen, he and Mark are friends, and I'd not want to stay in a forum where a friend is banned in a "school boy" manner, and not either want to be offered an "amnesty". Jesus, those people participated greatly to the value of this community, why should they need an amnesty to give their information for free?

Also I doubt that a normal adult person who hasn't made stupid mistakes would go back to such a place. I wouldn't and I dont expect M.T. and J.R. and Guy Manusco, and a few others to do so. Except of course if the present owner of the forum changes the policy that the past contents (given away for free of course) are not readable for non-subscribers and maybe contacts those members in a very polite, decent and tactful way by making clear that he follows a different style. However the first deletions on the new forum dont point in this direction.

Unfortunately!

regards, Bernie
Logged
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2006, 12:17:07 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 08:02:02 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2006, 12:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Roland,

Yes, the new owner will have to handle this. I won't comment more on this, because I haven't really been part of the active posters on RobG forum, so I am only indirectly concerned. However I hope that the people who were on this forum find a way to go on with their very educating debate and discussion. Maybe they will find/ create a new place as has been suggested by someone already.

I just was one of the silent readers of RG who - probably much like me - followed the discussions on the MF board regulary and with great interest, as there was so much to learn (for free) about new digital technology and the photographic business in general.  Quite a change from dpreview where the usual noise dominates.

regards, bernie
Logged
Lepanto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2006, 02:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone of the currently homeless Rob Galbraith contributors know Q.-Tuan Luongs largeformat forum at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/ ?

It is of course only interesting if you use LF cameras and shoot film but it shows exemplary how a non-commercial successor of the RG forum could look like.

Personally I would very much prefer to make donations for such a project instead of subscribing to the new RG forum.
Logged
free1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 397


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2006, 03:00:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I have suggested setting up a new MF oriented forum

I have experimentally set this up on www.smartgroups.com  

I have called this group "d64 group" with reference to the f64 group of the last century.

This is an unmoderated group and currently invitation only We can discuss later whether we should make it  more open. If we keep it closed then we can talk more freely about inside / industry knowledge than if it was searchable by google. But its a matter we can discuss.

Members can invite new members who they know are interested in MF digital.

As it is unmoderated it will rely on the membership to keep it basically on track and about MF digital. If its quality is good, then it will attract good posters. So it sinks or swims by self moderation. No idea if it will work.

Also, if another forum emerges which is better, no problem, we can gravitate there.
 
To join it please email me at  

paul  AT architecturalimages DOT co DOT uk

(replacing the words by punctuation of course)

I will then send you an invitation (5 already invited).

I am out shooting for the next 2 days, so it may take a couple of days to get started, then we should be in business.

This will be a co-op group. And won't be the property of a single member.
Logged

@foliobook
Foliobook professional photography folio for iPad
www.foliobook.mobi
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2006, 03:36:14 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 08:05:16 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2006, 03:45:10 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 08:00:51 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8027



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2006, 04:12:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1) All formerly banned users are invited back by the new owner
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63401\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

News to me (no one has contacted me from the site). Being a "banned user" I have no way to communicate with the new people there (I can't find an email). I did a search(about the only thing you can do as a non "member)  and find that I had posted 2543 posts. I'm not at all happy about the new owners referencing these posts to people who pay for this new site. Even if I was invited back (that's a BIG if), I'm not sure I would go back and I would demand all my old posts be removed since I'm just against the idea that info I freely posted is now only accessible to paid members. This just rubs me the wrong way.

I have no record of the original terms of use but I'd be surprised if there was anything that said RG owns what I wrote. Or he could transfer those posts to someone who is essentially selling them to make their own profit.

Considering photography and copyright issues, I'm actually shocked that these new owners would even consider such a move but maybe they are green about how professional photographers make a living (we sell usage of images, not the images themselves) and copyright is key to this.

Invite me back. OK maybe. But sell the archives; that's a deal breaker.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2006, 04:15:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I aslo posted this regarding the content issue:

Just to float an idea... Scientific journals have been having the same financing issues lately due to the Internet. The solution that they came up with finally was to have subscribers pay for content for a set period of time, say going back one year. All previous content beyond that period of time, over one year old for example was then incrementally released for free on the Internet for all to access. So if you want to stay current and add to the discussion you support the journals. But the data and intellectual ideas stay open to the public as intended by the contributors around the world. The price paid for the service is the cost of being behind the times by a set period of time. This model has kept the major scientific journals from going insolvent. It has kept intellectual property intended to be open open. For the most part it is a solution that has worked.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Roland,

I have seen your post, but unfortunately can't post a reply at RG's, being banned and all ...

I have to disagree with your comparison, online magazines, and even more so scientific ones, take a very different approach to communicating knowledge than a message board does, imho.
An internet forum gains its value solely by member contribution, be it day-to-day postings or searchable archives.
Take away even only one of those, and you get an incestuous coffee klatch.
It has been mentioned before, restricting (read) access to a forum also isolates it from the rest of the internet , as noone can link or otherwise refer to the content of such an insular community.

I'm quite familiar with online fora, as moderator, former owner and dedicated user, the issue of a forum with high traffic volume running out of  funds for bandwidth isn't uncommon.

There are several ways this issue is normally dealt with:

- Sponsors, who can run their own sub-forum - which doesn't necessarily lead to censorship; or who are allowed to run ads and such in a sales forum.

- Ads, didn't seem to work for RG.

- A call for voluntary donations. Trust me , in a really popular forum this works almost every time, when the alternative is a close-down. Should have been a great success in a forum frequented by a comparably wealthy audience .

The expenditure of time can be minimized by appointing voluntary moderators, shouldn't be much of an issue to find people ready to oversee a crowd as low-maintenance as on RG's.

However, it was decided to make a quick buck by selling the archive and possible 'high-tier' member base - or what remained of it after the recent cleansings - to the next best buyer.

Time will tell if the formerly high standards can be retained, and if the precious members from the industry will find it worthwhile to further contribute in such a restricted group.
Logged
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2006, 04:39:15 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 07:58:41 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
Mark_Tuttle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2006, 04:58:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Plain and simple, that circus has left town.  It was wonderful while it was here, but what now? Maybe someday another circus will come.

We can waste our collective energies trying to convince the new owners to see things our way or better yet focus our efforts into creating something new that serves our purpose.  I applaud Paul for taking steps toward this direction.  

I don't mean to make this sound "rah rah" (toss a cheerleader up into the air, anyone?) but think of this analogy:

If the MF Forum at RG was like a group of friends sitting around a table in a cafe having a drink then why can't we simply move the party on to the next cafe?

Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"

Mark Tuttle
Logged

Mark Tuttle
MarkTuttle dot Net
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2006, 05:33:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
News to me (no one has contacted me from the site). Being a "banned user" I have no way to communicate with the new people there (I can't find an email). I did a search(about the only thing you can do as a non "member)  and find that I had posted 2543 posts. I'm not at all happy about the new owners referencing these posts to people who pay for this new site. Even if I was invited back (that's a BIG if), I'm not sure I would go back and I would demand all my old posts be removed since I'm just against the idea that info I freely posted is now only accessible to paid members. This just rubs me the wrong way.

I have no record of the original terms of use but I'd be surprised if there was anything that said RG owns what I wrote. Or he could transfer those posts to someone who is essentially selling them to make their own profit.

Considering photography and copyright issues, I'm actually shocked that these new owners would even consider such a move but maybe they are green about how professional photographers make a living (we sell usage of images, not the images themselves) and copyright is key to this.

Invite me back. OK maybe. But sell the archives; that's a deal breaker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because of people like you being banned--I am not sure I would find the forums of any value.  If you (and others) don't go back (and I'm assuming not--to be truthful), then---I won't either.  I'm sure others feel the same.  I spent time in the RAW, color mgt., PS forums more than the 1D---5D forums (where I could find similar info elsewhere)--and I admit to being a 'voyeur' on the MF forum where I learned a lot.  

I'm planning to wait and see how the forum works out.  For now, I've found other places to find what I want for the most part though it takes more time.

Archives--I have strong reservations about them.

Diane
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2006, 09:17:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the MF Forum at RG was like a group of friends sitting around a table in a cafe having a drink then why can't we simply move the party on to the next cafe?

Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"

Mark Tuttle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that things are well on their way to having this place be the next cafe. I'll buy a pitcher if anyone's willing to stick around.  
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad