|
fracture
Jul 29, 2005, 5:59 PM
Post #26 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Personally, there have been a few times when I would have loved to be able to purchase an image I saw on the front page.
Strange. If I liked an image on the FP enough to want to keep it (unlikely), I'd just save it on my disk somewhere.
Do you absolutely have to have a higher-res copy for some reason?
;)
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 29, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #27 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
In reply to: This site is a business in which the people who make the business valuable get no remuneration.
Jay-
Where would you like your $0.0001 check mailed? :roll:
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jul 29, 2005, 6:03 PM
Post #28 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
Posting that your gear is for sale ends up on the front page. Why should photos be different?
I think that the both the classified ads and the photos should be treated equally. If there is a reson to keep epople from selling their stuff on the front page then:
1. Don't show recent classified ads on the front page at all.
2. Have two chunks of text associated with images. A short summary that cannot have purchase information and has a characters count limit, and a description that can have anything the photog wants including purchase info. The summary is the only thing that shows on the front page. The summary and description both show on the photo page. Dont bother with giving the photog a little "purchase me" button.
Do not require or ask for commission from photo sales unless all gear sold on the site is treated the same.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jul 29, 2005, 6:07 PM
Post #29 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Remember, the site takes much effort to run - it would be nice to be able to generate revenue for the guys doing the work. Don't kid yourself. The site is already self-supporting, and the people who the company think deserve to get paid do. This line that the managers and owners like to throw out: "keeping the lights on" is not the motive. This site is a business in which the people who make the business valuable get no remuneration.
Exactly.
The costs to host a website aren't all that large in the first place. When you don't even have to pay for your content---that is, people put it up here for you for free---you really ought to stop complaining about how hard it is to "keep the lights on".
The people who post quality information and well thought out opinions here are what make this site worth reading (for me, at least). Not the people who spend their time using moderation to implicitly endorse certain opinions (cf. a recent misguided thread splitting), or working on new monkey-based designs.
8^)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jul 29, 2005, 6:14 PM
Post #30 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: PHP is such a beautiful programming language for the web
Lisp is the only computer language that is beautiful. -- Neal Stephenson
Maybe PHP could be considered beautiful....from some sort of a dadaist perspective. :lol:
In reply to: there really isn't anything that can't be done if someones willing to put in the time to do it.
But I totally agree with this.
And I'd point out that there are a lot of bored software developers out there (like yours truly) who would be a lot more likely to donate their time for free to develop new site features if the site were less (i.e. not) commercial. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how many hours these bored individuals (again, like yours truly) spend working on Open Source Software without financial compensation.
:P
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 29, 2005, 6:17 PM
Post #31 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
In reply to: Posting that your gear is for sale ends up on the front page. Why should photos be different?
Well, if you post your gear for sale, it goes up, and then gets bumped off within an hour or so by other postings. A highly-rated photo randomly appears on the front page for 45 days. So there's already a world of difference there, even before we factor in:
* the click for the gear sale is website-internal, and the click for the photo is website-external
* the click for the gear sale is not highlighted in any way among the recent messages it is listed in, whereas the link for the photo sale is (in this example) in a standalone area, accentuated as much as the photographer wishes it to be.
So there's no double standard in setting guidelines for photographers: there wasn't a standard to begin with.
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 29, 2005, 6:28 PM
Post #32 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
[quote="fracture]And I'd point out that there are a lot of bored software developers out there (like yours truly) who would be a lot more likely to donate their time for free to develop new site features if the site were less (i.e. not) commercial. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how many hours these bored individuals (again, like yours truly) spend working on Open Source Software without financial compensation.
Err, fracture...you are currently talking to a bored software developer donating their time for free to develop new site features. The compensation you'd get from coding on RC.com is somewhat better than what you'd get contributing to some Open Source project: you'd get to use the features you just wrote, live, on a website you enjoy. Who cares if there's a corporate entity in the back room trying to do more than just keep the lights on?
SourceForge.net is run by a donation-accepting for-profit corporation too, y'know. I don't hear many people in the Open Source community complaining about that. C'mon, join us. It's fun!
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 29, 2005, 6:31 PM
Post #33 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
In reply to: And I'd point out that there are a lot of bored software developers out there (like yours truly) who would be a lot more likely to donate their time for free to develop new site features if the site were less (i.e. not) commercial. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how many hours these bored individuals (again, like yours truly) spend working on Open Source Software without financial compensation.
Err, fracture...you are currently talking to a bored software developer donating their time for free to develop new site features. The compensation you'd get from coding on RC.com is somewhat better than what you'd get contributing to some Open Source project: you'd get to use the features you just wrote, live, on a website you enjoy. Who cares if there's a corporate entity in the back room trying to do more than just keep the lights on?
SourceForge.net is run by a donation-accepting for-profit corporation too, y'know. I don't hear many people in the Open Source community complaining about that. C'mon, join us. It's fun!
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jul 29, 2005, 6:42 PM
Post #34 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Err, fracture...you are currently talking to a bored software developer donating their time for free to develop new site features.
I didn't know they had programmers working for free. This would probably qualify as a further example of why site management should stfu about "keeping the lights on". ;)
Anyway, I'd still maintain that there would be more willing to contribute if the site were non-commercial. (I, for one, have no interest in contributing to the site the way it is currently set up).
In reply to: SourceForge.net is run by a donation-accepting for-profit corporation too, y'know. I don't hear many people in the Open Source community complaining about that.
Sourceforge.net's code is open source, and the corporation running it puts a lot of money and other support into projects that are open source.
But there certainly are plenty of people who dislike various aspects of sourceforge anyway (the GNU guys have their own sf-esque site (savannah), for example). (The opinions of people in the Open Source/Free Software community are pretty hard to pidgeon-hole).
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jul 29, 2005, 10:08 PM
Post #35 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: and then imagine what the photo galleries would look like if everyone photographer were given carte blanche do use the site to market their photos in any manner they chose, then I think that you might see where I'm coming from with the flea market analogy. -Jay
Jay, this is exactly my concern as well so I`m very happy that you popint this out. Please do continue to be the conscience of rc.com.
There is no way that Mr or Ms average users butt shot pics will ever be considered as part of this program. The proposal was that if a photogs pics were in the highly rated range then they would be considered as qualifying for the program. Only the very highest rated pics would be allowed to be available and only then if the photog themselves allow it.
I suggest that this program may initially start with a bang but it will slow and then very gradually build to quite a substantial very high quality photo archive. Can you imagine being able to source high quality images on demand.
How many times have comments been made on pics that a particular user would love to have a poster on the wall of a particular pic. We are responding to a well voiced need.
I hear you Jay, I too do not want to have anything to do with a huge number of low quality pics, this is an elite selection of very high quality magazine shots.
The mechanics I see of how to source the pics would simply be a button off to the side of a particular pic indicating that the pic is available for sale. Once clicked the button will take you on to further pages. You do not have to click the button.
I do see that this site can support the photographers and in fact generate a market for their very fine art. This should in fact help to improve what we see in the mags as well. Can this be a bad thing, I don`t think so.
Significant effort is expended taking high quality images, should an artist give his work away for free, no way.
Yes anyone can rip an image for free from the galleries but to gain access to high quality images the $ need to be paid. Commercial businesses need to gain access to images for use with copyright permission, this is another way for the two to meet. We intend to help that process.
To all. Wanna come on board then start taking great pics. allow the creative person which resides in you all to flourish and then submit those pics for consideration of your peers.
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 29, 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #36 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
In reply to: (I, for one, have no interest in contributing to the site the way it is currently set up).
Why? Who cares if someone is trying to make a buck off this site if you're improving your own user experience? Wouldn't you rather have a say in the site's direction by having a hand in it, as opposed to sitting on the sidelines and saying 'I don't like the direction it's going in, but I can't change that because it's a *commercial* site?' You can make this site better, for yourself, right now. Isn't that motivation enough? What motivates you to participate in an Open Source project, anyway?
And lest you labor under any misconceptions about what it's like to volunteer here, if you work on the site, you're going to get to pick what you work on. Sure, you can't take a feature live without clearing the idea with the site's management--and making sure it works--but it's not like they're going to say, "No fracture, we don't want the site to be cooler, we just want to make money." The community is important to this site, so non-revenue-generating features (which I assume are the sort you'd want to build) that build or leverage the community are important to this site.
So please, get specific: why won't you donate time and energy to the site as it is structured/managed today?
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 29, 2005, 11:17 PM
Post #37 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: So please, get specific: why won't you donate time and energy to the site as it is structured/managed today?
Because most of us don't like to work for free so that others can make money from our efforts. Most people would consider that being taken advantage of.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jul 29, 2005, 11:34 PM
Post #38 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
In reply to: In reply to: Posting that your gear is for sale ends up on the front page. Why should photos be different? Well, if you post your gear for sale, it goes up, and then gets bumped off within an hour or so by other postings. A highly-rated photo randomly appears on the front page for 45 days. So there's already a world of difference there, even before we factor in: * the click for the gear sale is website-internal, and the click for the photo is website-external * the click for the gear sale is not highlighted in any way among the recent messages it is listed in, whereas the link for the photo sale is (in this example) in a standalone area, accentuated as much as the photographer wishes it to be. So there's no double standard in setting guidelines for photographers: there wasn't a standard to begin with. -aB
Okay, I get it. Someone can make a post to sell gear and in their post, they can link to their own web site and they can say almost anything they want that does not violate the rules. Is this right so far?
Then a photog can stick up a picture and can place a link to their own site selling the photo and the only difference is that the link to their site apears on the front page while the link in the gear post is not on the front page.
So don't let them show the link on the front page. Have the site programming remove any links from photo comments that are displayed on the front page. Perhaps remove the link and the text that is linked too. It's a simple solution that allows users to sell their gear and photos but keeps the front page from commercially benefiting the photog.
They could always buy ad space if they think they'll sell photos galore.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 30, 2005, 12:12 AM
Post #39 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
In reply to: In reply to: So please, get specific: why won't you donate time and energy to the site as it is structured/managed today? Because most of us don't like to work for free so that others can make money from our efforts. Most people would consider that being taken advantage of.
For someone who worries about the overcommercialization of this site, that's a sadly money-centric view of the world. "For Free" does not equal "without compensation," it just equals "without financial compensation." I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't getting something out of it. Human beings don't do anything unless they believe it benefits them, unless they are addicted to something.
Anyway, IMHO, if you want things on this site not to revolve around money, you might start with your own head...
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jul 30, 2005, 12:12 AM
Post #40 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: So please, get specific: why won't you donate time and energy to the site as it is structured/managed today? Because most of us don't like to work for free so that others can make money from our efforts. Most people would consider that being taken advantage of. -Jay
This is more or less the same reason here.
But to explain further: I have contributed to open source projects which are sold commercially, and several open source OS distributions (usually available commercially on CDs) contain binary packages of a couple applications I have written. There is however a huge difference between a commercial website and open source application software which is available both commerically (perhaps with support) and for free on the internet.
The main difference being that I can continue to use my changes to an open source project no matter what anyone else wants to do. I can even fully fork the project if I don't like what people are doing to it. No one can deprive the rest of the community of my changes, either---once they are out on the internet (in source form), they are available for anyone to use (and modify).
Conversely, on a website there is really only one version of the "application" for people to use. And on a commercial website controlled by a few individuals, things I contribute (which I assume the site would want to take the copyrights to) could later be declared potential revenue generators and moved to "subscribers only" sections---depriving the community, and possibly even myself, of their use.
I couldn't contribute to a project structured like that in good conscience, even if I wanted to. When I write software for free, I expect it to serve the community (without requiring them to pay). If I'm developing proprietary software off of which someone makes money, I expect to get paid. ;)
(For this same reason, btw, I feel somewhat unsure about contributing to the route database, though I do it anyway... Hopefully the RDB will never become "subscribers only" (or if it does, hopefully people who have contributed to it will start a lawsuit, ha hah :lol:)).
8^)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 30, 2005, 1:00 AM
Post #41 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Anyway, IMHO, if you want things on this site not to revolve around money, you might start with your own head...
By saying that you indicate that you missed my point. I don't care whether the site "revolves around money" or not. But if it does, I'm either going to get paid to work on it, or I'm not going to work on it. As it is, I'm only barely comfortable posting to it, since my posts, along with those of many others, are the reasons that the owners of the site can make any money off it at all.
I have suggested repeatedly that the only fair organizational structure for this site would be a co-op, in which everybody who contributes to the site shares in the profits. Maybe my check would really only be $.0001, like you quipped, but if that's what I'm really worth, so be it.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Jul 30, 2005, 1:56 AM
Post #42 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
I think you guys are applying the "slippery slope" theory to this thread. While pondering the potential financial changes to this site is well and good, lets get back to the very specific topic of the purchasing of photos.
I thought Philbox's last post was very well written and exactly to the point of what I was thinking. All photos for sale would of course have to be approved for sale on a per-image basis. There would be a button (maybe even a tab in the navigation area?) to take you to the purchasing page - whether it be onsite or offsite.
Just as an update - the photos with which I've included a purchase link have generated about 50 print sales......... NOT! Absolutely zero, nothin', nada.
And to whoever it was that suggested I could just save a photo to my harddrive if I liked it so much - am I of the dieing group that enjoys having tangible prints hanging on a wall as opposed to electrified pixels on a screen!? I think not.
|
|
|
|
|
wormly81
Jul 30, 2005, 2:27 AM
Post #43 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2004
Posts: 280
|
In reply to: Maybe my check would really only be $.0001, like you quipped, but if that's what I'm really worth, so be it. -Jay
Dont sell yourself short Jay; your worth at least 10 times that amount.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jul 30, 2005, 3:11 AM
Post #44 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
... double post ....
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jul 30, 2005, 3:13 AM
Post #45 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: I have suggested repeatedly that the only fair organizational structure for this site would be a co-op, in which everybody who contributes to the site shares in the profits.
Do you mean as long as it is structured as a for-profit site?
Personally I'd prefer if the site just dropped all the for-profit stuff. If it can be done for something like wikipedia---which is many orders of magnitude more ambitious than a simple site for people to argue about rock climbing---I don't see why rc.com can't do it also.
Hell, I'd probably even donate money if it were non-profit. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 30, 2005, 3:27 AM
Post #46 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have suggested repeatedly that the only fair organizational structure for this site would be a co-op, in which everybody who contributes to the site shares in the profits. Do you mean as long as it is structured as a for-profit site?
Yes, that is what I should have said that. If the present owners want to make a buck off the site, they shouldn't be doing it off the labor that others do for free. Surely, some sort of reasonable profit-sharing formula could be devised.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jul 31, 2005, 8:02 PM
Post #47 of 47
(4649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: Surely, some sort of reasonable profit-sharing formula could be devised. -Jay
Which is exactly how we wish the photo for sale part of the site be structured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
