Author Topic: Should MSG require confirmed identities? (Read 37137 times)

qwerty · « **Reply #125 on:** October 15, 2011, 22:51 »

I just looked for the first time and saw that I have two people ignoring me. I have 6 useful posts does that mean I can stay ? Can you tell who is ignoring you ?

I like to have my details private for two reasons

1) Retribution from agencies
2) Retribution from people flagging my account/keywords etc.

I wouldn't like any major changes around here just ban people if they go overboard.

SNP · « **Reply #126 on:** October 15, 2011, 23:42 »

that's the problem....define "overboard"

MatHayward · « **Reply #127 on:** October 16, 2011, 00:31 »

I wrote a long, thought out post here and got called away from my desk. I thought about it, came back up and deleted the entire thing.

Why? Because it just isn't worth it.

Leaf, I applaud you for asking the question at all. I would encourage you to go through all the threads for as far back as you have the patience for and write down how many people are anonymous making confrontational (pointless) posts and how many are legitimate photographers looking to engage in serious discussions about the Microstock Industry. I would guess it's 10 to 1 or more on anonymous cyber-bullies compared with legitimate, serious people.

It seems any time someone from the outside that isn't part of the "cool crowd" gets ripped up down left and right. It's a very hostile environment and frankly it is more unpleasant and unwelcoming than anything as is.

I love the idea posted around page 2 or 3 about a group of established, serious photographers forming a sub-group to discuss and vote on serious issues then bring them to the table as one. That many images behind a group joined in solidarity could have a real voice where right now there isn't one. Any time a commission is cut or a benefit is reduced there is the same sound of white noise rushing empty through the forum. "Union" this, "pull your port" that..blah blah blah. A group of legitimate photographers with established portfolios and reputations as professionals debating and discussing could open up a lot of doors in my opinion.

Leaf, I think many people would back you creating a private forum within the forum. Invite the top contributing photographers in this forum and begin a discussion on who else could be a valuable asset. Heck, charge $40 a year to be a member. Once the momentum gets going we might just be able to get something accomplished around here.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #128 on:** October 16, 2011, 01:27 »

For what it's worth, if the above suggestion were implemented, I'd be out of here.

I have no interest in joining some clique to sort out the industry and hand down wisdom to the great unwashed, but then I don't have a clue if I'd qualify as legitimate or serious.

That's the problem with all such schemes - who decides who is legitimate and who isn't?

I'd really be sorry to see this forum go, but I think that's what would happen if you went down this road. You'd be left with a small elite talking to themselves.

Microbius · « **Reply #129 on:** October 16, 2011, 01:28 »

Quote from: ProArtwork on October 15, 2011, 14:58

Quote from: jsnover on October 15, 2011, 14:10
Quote from: ProArtwork on October 15, 2011, 12:41
Or anyone wanting to remain anonymous pay a $5 fee should they not want to confirm identity to Tyler. That should be fair enough and better control of things.

Some troll with enough money to pay, even multiple times, could still cause trouble for the rest of us who are just trying to keep tabs on the industry we're in. Seems more like a fine for doing something you don't like.
That may be true but we won't know that until it happen. They will need multiple paypal accounts for such nonsense. The fee will only apply if they don't want to give their identity and not for anonymous that their identities have been confirmed by Tyler. I won't go as far as to call it a fine since they have a choice. I would call it an integrity fee or anti-troll fee.

Well, the problem is that Tyler will be inundated with emails from trolls with a sense of entitlement. "I payed to troll so now you can't ban me!!!!"

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #131 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:02 »

I suppose we could always judge who is serious and who is just mouthing off by how far over their little sales meters are, eh Mat? No need to pay $40 for that.

leaf · « **Reply #133 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:21 »

Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2011, 01:47

Quote from: jsnover on October 16, 2011, 01:27
I have no interest in joining some clique

I was a member of the Digital Wedding Forum for years. I paid $100 per year, the forum is private. It was filled with some of the most elite photographers in the world. There were constantly heated, thought provoking debates but never the small, insecure petty BS that seems to be flooding every thread worth it's weight here. Everyone had their web site out there for the everyone else to see and even the best of the best posted their images for critique and received it. I learned so much in that forum I can't even put it into words. I can't say the same about this forum.

Mat

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I have read and thought about every post in this thread (I sure wish I was a faster reader...) and there have been lots of great thoughts and suggestions.

I have thought about this idea too Matt. Starting another little area here for people who only wanted 'serious' talk.. or have it on another site bit integrated here somehow too... not sure.. anyhow. great discussion. I'll keep thinking and listening and asking.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #134 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:58 »

I'm a bit confused about this "serious talk" idea. Does this mean discussing techniques and equipment for wedding photography or macro shoots or lighting set-ups? That seems to be what some people want.

I thought this site was about the microstock industry and how its actions and decisions affect the people who provide images to it and in some cases make their living from it. That, Mat, is why how far across the little dials are is an indication of whether people are serious or not, because it shows whether they are significant players in the business or not.

Some people seem to feel that if you highlight the defects of the microstock site that they adore you are guilty of trolling or being negative or disruptive. I disagree. When commissions are being cut, goalposts are being moved and agencies start trying to dictate who is or is not allowed to work with other agencies without being punished, then criticism, anger and "negativity" is to be expected.

We know that on Fotolia's forums Mat would use his power as moderator to remove any such "negativity". If Fotolia had its way, nobody would be allowed to criticise its decisions anywhere else, either. I guess Mat likes forums to be controlled in the way he controls Fotolia's. To me, it seems that his arguments have to be seen through the lens of what he censors on Fotolia. Do we want MSG to be controlled so that only "serious" discussions of stuff like wedding photography are allowed, so people can learn from it, or do we want to stick to what this site has always been about, which is the relationship between suppliers and agencies?

If Mat wants to discuss the implications of the image circle of a standard Tessar lens for the use of movements in a view camera, then I will happily talk about it. But let's do it somewhere else.

ProArtwork · « **Reply #135 on:** October 16, 2011, 03:10 »

ProArtwork · « **Reply #136 on:** October 16, 2011, 03:14 »

Quote from: Microbius on October 16, 2011, 01:28

Well, the problem is that Tyler will be inundated with emails from trolls with a sense of entitlement. "I payed to troll so now you can't ban me!!!!"

No! They are paying to be civilized as an anonymous member. Anti-troll fee means no entitlement to troll, period!

Maui · « **Reply #137 on:** October 16, 2011, 04:18 »

Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2011, 00:31

It seems any time someone from the outside that isn't part of the "cool crowd" gets ripped up down left and right. It's a very hostile environment and frankly it is more unpleasant and unwelcoming than anything as is.

Um - somehow I must be on a different forum than you.

And I am a person who normally prefers harmony.

FD · « **Reply #138 on:** October 16, 2011, 04:29 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 15, 2011, 09:17

For example, if you have Sunnymars/pseudonymous/etc. on ignore, you would still have been subjected to the petulant rambling postings of Bettan until you realized it was the same person.

Are you sure? I supported her on a few occasions (in private and on DT) and Bettan was quite aggressive. If it was Sunnymars, she would never had said that I was anonymous. Or maybe she is suffering from the dr.Jekyll - mr.Hide syndrome.

stormchaser · « **Reply #139 on:** October 16, 2011, 04:50 »

If there is any charging for the forum, don't expect to see any agency people here again.

As far as a "private area" isn't there already a member's only area? Really, privacy? For what? Are there some holy secrets that are meant for certain eyes only?

As far as a gear talk area etc, well you see how many replies of value are posted when someone asks a legitimate gear question - not that many.

My suggestion is put a Complain button on the posts and if someone is offended or has got their nose out of joint about something, a click notifies the moderator. Or implement a 3 strikes rule and flag the IPs. Even persistent Complain button pushers could get warned.

As they say "stop feeding the trolls" yet some just keep doing it. Flamebait isn't even fun anymore. Ignore it and the morons will just keep posting to their own audience. And the thread will die its own timely death. Some just can't keep their finger off the trigger though. The quality of the forum can only be maintained if the members themselves aspire to something better instead of engaging in childish games.

FD · « **Reply #140 on:** October 16, 2011, 04:59 »

Quote from: stormchaser on October 16, 2011, 04:50

My suggestion is put a Complain button on the posts and if someone is offended or has got their nose out of joint about something, a click notifies the moderator.

That's already there: "report to moderator" text link at the right bottom of every post.

SNP · « **Reply #141 on:** October 16, 2011, 10:20 »

Quote from: Maui on October 16, 2011, 04:18

Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2011, 00:31
It seems any time someone from the outside that isn't part of the "cool crowd" gets ripped up down left and right. It's a very hostile environment and frankly it is more unpleasant and unwelcoming than anything as is.

Um - somehow I must be on a different forum than you.

And I am a person who normally prefers harmony.

there are many people who feel this way. not just amateurs, but established pros too. I don't find it hostile, I think that's too strong. at worst, it's immature at times and one big pissing contest, and it has its share of thuggish personalities. at best it's an informative place, with freedom of speech (too much so sometimes). Once you know who's who more or less, it's easier to wade through.

Batman · « **Reply #142 on:** October 16, 2011, 13:01 »

Quote from: ProArtwork on October 16, 2011, 03:14

Quote from: Microbius on October 16, 2011, 01:28
Well, the problem is that Tyler will be inundated with emails from trolls with a sense of entitlement. "I payed to troll so now you can't ban me!!!!"
No! They are paying to be civilized as an anonymous member. Anti-troll fee means no entitlement to troll, period!

Id be gone and meters mean nothing.

Eireann · « **Reply #143 on:** October 16, 2011, 15:21 »

The question of the poll is :
- 'Would you find this community more valuable if everyone shared their identity?'
My answer, (and vote), is 'yes, yes I would'.

However, if revealing identities becomes mandatory I'm afraid many artists will shy away from posting here.
And I don't want that to happen.
I want everyone to be able to post. I don't want people to leave, I want them stay here and keep on posting. Good or bad, I'm old enough to make up my own mind.

It's a tough one, Leaf ...

stockastic · « **Reply #144 on:** October 16, 2011, 17:54 »

If I couldn't be anonymous anymore I'd be out. Sorry.

Some of these agencies are run by creepy, nasty, volatile people. A (very) few posters here seem to be jerks, too, and I don't want them seeing my stuff. The occasional outbursts of rudeness and craziness don't bother me at all - remember, it's just text on a monitor.

We already have the agencies' own forums - and they're worthless.

stockastic · « **Reply #145 on:** October 16, 2011, 17:57 »

[dup]

SNP · « **Reply #146 on:** October 16, 2011, 18:00 »

I think the compromise again is identities known by Tyler for the purposes of registering accounts only. that way anyone worried about agency or contributor retaliation can worry less.

stockastic · « **Reply #147 on:** October 16, 2011, 18:17 »

Quote from: SNP on October 16, 2011, 18:00

I think the compromise again is identities known by Tyler for the purposes of registering accounts only. that way anyone worried about agency or contributor retaliation can worry less.

That of course assumes we completely trust the administrators of this forum. Do they have personal connections with people at agencies, or with other posters? I have no idea. Could someone at an agency get worked up about something he saw here, contact an adminstrator and offer a nice incentive in exchange for the identity of the troublesome poster? It's not hard to imagine.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #148 on:** October 16, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 16, 2011, 18:17

Quote from: SNP on October 16, 2011, 18:00
I think the compromise again is identities known by Tyler for the purposes of registering accounts only. that way anyone worried about agency or contributor retaliation can worry less.

That of course assumes we completely trust the administrators of this forum.

LOL more than agencies no???

SNP · « **Reply #149 on:** October 16, 2011, 18:36 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 16, 2011, 18:17

Quote from: SNP on October 16, 2011, 18:00
I think the compromise again is identities known by Tyler for the purposes of registering accounts only. that way anyone worried about agency or contributor retaliation can worry less.

That of course assumes we completely trust the administrators of this forum. Do they have personal connections with people at agencies, or with other posters? I have no idea. Could someone at an agency get worked up about something he saw here, contact an adminstrator and offer a nice incentive in exchange for the identity of the troublesome poster? It's not hard to imagine.

I understand being cautious, but surely if you're that worried you wouldn't be here risking your account to begin with. this site is an important third-party resource for all things microstock. IMO it should facilitate open discussion and be a reference for those who might read only if MSG is going to evolve. I think it would be taken even more seriously and used more if it wasn't also a dumping ground for insults and wild speculation. Something a little in between the Lone Gunmen and Jsnover. No one should be forced into the open, but yes, I would have no problem trusting Tyler to know our identities. I'd have thought him already privy to the real names of those using his site anyways. I was surprised he isn't already in the know on our real identities.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Would you find this community more valuable if everyone shared their identity?

Author Topic: Should MSG require confirmed identities? (Read 37137 times)

qwerty

SNP

MatHayward

Jo Ann Snover

Microbius

MatHayward

BaldricksTrousers

MatHayward

leaf

BaldricksTrousers

ProArtwork

ProArtwork

Maui

FD

stormchaser

FD

SNP

Batman

Eireann

stockastic

stockastic

SNP

stockastic

luissantos84

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors