MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Site Related => Topic started by: leaf on October 14, 2011, 01:41

Title: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: leaf on October 14, 2011, 01:41
I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads, and wonder if a site where people had to reveal their identity would be beneficial and help curb this problem.

I understand the want for some people to hide their identity but feel the gain we get when everyone shares who they are may be bigger than the loss.

In the past, some agencies have taken action on what someone has said in a public form.  I would guess what was said in the forum was a continuation of an already rocky relationship with the agency and not a shot out of the blue. Agencies in general have often proven responsive to critique as long as it is worded in a respectful manner, something that having shown identities may encourage.  I actually feel agencies would be more responsive to critique and suggestions if those suggestions and critique were made by 'visible' individuals and not people hiding under blankets.  A critique from 10 confirmed users feels a lot stronger than one from 100 anonymous individuals.

Anyhow, I'm not saying this is going to happen, I just throwing out ideas and thinking of things to consider.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 01:44
As you know, you're really just repeating a thread topic that has already been beaten to death, so I guess you are interested in votes rather than a discussion. Right?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 14, 2011, 01:50
I really don't think the reasons for anonymity have changed.

If you require identity (and as an aside, I don't know how you can reliably verify that) you'll just lose those people who don't want to put their portfolio at risk (for the vindictive agency) or don't want to have people copying them (a couple of people have mentioned that).

I'd rather ignore those who just come here to stir up trouble and live with the flaws of anonymity versus living with the flaws of a forum so tightly regulated that some people feel they have to leave. I don't see either situation as a clear win, just picking the least problematic approach.

When one of the threads descends into insanity, I just stop reading it. There are enough useful threads to contribute to and I have kids if I want to get into pointless arguments - who needs more of those in a forum? :)

I voted no, in case that wasn't obvious.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Eyedesign on October 14, 2011, 02:06
I'll vote yes on this one, good idea.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: RT on October 14, 2011, 02:08
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.

We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.

The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread, I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.

So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 02:12
You could end up with a bigger problem if someone signs up using another person's name (someone obscure who doesn't follow forums) and then proceeds to get them into trouble with an agency. You might find yourself legally responsible for that unless you had taken reasonable steps to verify the identity. Do you really want to get involved with passports and ID cards (some of them in Hindi or Urdu)?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Ploink on October 14, 2011, 02:22
...I actually feel agencies would be more responsive to critique and suggestions if those suggestions and critique were made by 'visible' individuals and not people hiding under blankets.  A critique from 10 confirmed users feels a lot stronger than one from 100 anonymous individuals...

I'm afraid that this is, noble as it may be, a dream. Right now I see two kind of agencies: Those who are active in their own and in this forum, they listen to contributors' voices even if they are anonymous. And those agencies who see their contributors as nuisance, which is merely tolerated because money can be made from it (two big ones come to mind :P). So, no, I appreciate being anonymous here and I wouldn't be happy if it were to change.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Perry on October 14, 2011, 02:29
I really don't think the reasons for anonymity have changed.

If you require identity (and as an aside, I don't know how you can reliably verify that) you'll just lose those people who don't want to put their portfolio at risk (for the vindictive agency)

+1

I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads,

It's just reflection of how things currently are in the microstock business.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 14, 2011, 02:57
I personally would be terrified to make any negative comments about an agency under my real name. Microstock is pretty much the sole source of income for my family and some the agencies have demonstrated that they have to qualms about suspending accounts on the slightest provocation.
It would be like getting small farmers to talk about unscrupulous practices by supermarkets, you would just be faced by a wall of silence. The only people who would post honestly are hobbyists who have little to lose and those too big to be sacked.

If the power balance wasn't so much in the agencies favor it would be different.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: michealo on October 14, 2011, 03:24
Who is this Leaf guy!? ;-)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Wim on October 14, 2011, 04:30
I personally would be terrified to make any negative comments about an agency under my real name. Microstock is pretty much the sole source of income for my family and some the agencies have demonstrated that they have to qualms about suspending accounts on the slightest provocation.
It would be like getting small farmers to talk about unscrupulous practices by supermarkets, you would just be faced by a wall of silence. The only people who would post honestly are hobbyists who have little to lose and those too big to be sacked.

If the power balance wasn't so much in the agencies favor it would be different.

I agree.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: leaf on October 14, 2011, 04:34
to clear up a few things...

@ Microbius
You already have confirmed your identity with portfolio links.  Yes they are hidden, but you are still showing your gauges and are willing to show that you are indeed involved in microstock and DO have an identity behind your posts, even if people can't see it.  There could be a middle ground where people are able to keep a semi-anonymous outward profile while still confirming they are indeed a contributer.

@baldricksTrousers
the idea is so much in the idea stage that whether it would work logistically hasn't really been considered.  I like to think of what ideas would be worth implementing first, THEN decide how to make it work.  That said, I would never ask for passports or drivers license or anything of the like.  For a simple Internet forum that is going way overboard.  At most I would require a PM through a stock site like Dreamstime or iStock and at least I would simply require people to link a portfolio, facebook, linkedin etc. profile... and deal with the identity theft when/if it showed up.

But thanks for all the thoughts so far.
Either way, I intend to continue attempting to step down on insults and unnecessary language in an effort to try and keep this site at least 'somewhat' professional.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: grp_photo on October 14, 2011, 04:41


I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads,

It's just reflection of how things currently are in the microstock business.
+1
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cobalt on October 14, 2011, 04:46
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem. If my family income depended on microstock and I saw that some agencies where extremely brutal in dealing with criticism, I think I would prefer to be anonymous.

But I always check if the people posting here are real and have portfolio links. Talking to someone who is active in the industry is different, than talking to someone just dropping by and posting an opinion.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 04:55
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem.

Hmm. Istock's never, to my knowledge, been accused of victimising people for saying stuff off-site, it's true. But it's not noted for paying attention to contributors' concerns, either.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 14, 2011, 05:14
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem.

Hmm. Istock's never, to my knowledge, been accused of victimising people for saying stuff off-site, it's true. But it's not noted for paying attention to contributors' concerns, either.

I don't know, when it comes actual individual situations (not major policy issues) you know you are going to get a response from an email or call to IStock, and in a reasonable time frame. It's hard for me to keep the two separate, but if I take a step back I have to admit that this aspect of contributor relations has been good at IS considering the size of their operation
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Paulo M. F. Pires on October 14, 2011, 05:15
I would vote yes, but on second thought. "depends" would better response to my situation: beginner/links on signature. Basically i'm identified so, what is a confirmed confirmed identities? My real photo?  ;D  

I'm not using real name on nick, but easily anyone finds which agency's where i am ( forum links and some posts made earlier ). So, for critique and suggestions propose I'm already "confirmed" , but don't believe that means anything to "comissions&earnings war", mainly because my sales volume/portfolio so far.

By other side, how identity help dialog between contributors? I've read somewhere here things like "What you know about? You don't have any height to talk about that.." or "Should discourage newbies"... and I bet many people starting at micro stock would prefer anonymity.

Anyway I used to to be correct in any forum as I am directly with agency's or/and real life.

 


 
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: sam100 on October 14, 2011, 05:25
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.

We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.

The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread, I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.

So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.
+1
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 14, 2011, 05:51
There's definitely a very fine line to tread.
It gets to be a real problem when there are those who aim to use any forum they contribute to as a marketing tool for their business or to set themselves up as gurus.
There are those who want complete control over any interaction they have on a forum so they can present themselves in the best light possible regardless of where the truth lies. I know that this has led some on other forums (SS for example) to build up relationships with moderators to effectively shut down any questioning of their position and to have posts outing untruths deleted. As well as building up small gangs like in a school playground that get PMed to post on queue and bully other forum members.
What this ultimately means is that you end up with a forum no one in the know would ever contemplate reading, let alone contributing to.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: anonymous on October 14, 2011, 06:55
no
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ShadySue on October 14, 2011, 07:17
no
:D :D ;)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: sharpshot on October 14, 2011, 07:30
What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: fujiko on October 14, 2011, 07:30
Personally, if you want me to identify privately with you and provide an ID. I'll do it.
Anything else, maybe in the future, not now.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: red on October 14, 2011, 07:36
Either way, I intend to continue attempting to step down on insults and unnecessary language in an effort to try and keep this site at least 'somewhat' professional.

I applaud that although it is more work for you, you cannot be monitoring these forums 24 hours. There are certain posters who are banned but then come back and cause trouble again. It might be good to not cut them as much slack as you have in the past. I would have no problem with implementing some way of identifying posters as actually having microstock portfolios or having some connection with the industry in general (photographer or illustrator) as a criteria for posting without identifying them by actual name.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 14, 2011, 07:37
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: leaf on October 14, 2011, 07:44
What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.

If anyone has a multiple identity and it is discovered their second identity is removed.  I can see IP address of people posting so it generally isn't too hard to spot multiple accounts.  They could of course use a proxy but that gets to be a lot of work for what sort of gain?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 14, 2011, 07:56
There are certain posters who are banned but then come back and cause trouble again. Iit might be good to not cut them as much slack as you have in the past.

That's what has sometimes confused me, when someone is banned then shows up straight away again with a different ID. Is there no way to ban an IP address rather than an MSG account?

Also agree with the firmer line on people who clearly can't control themselves after a warning. There are contributors who have personally insulted everyone else on the forum with outbursts several times and seem to have gotten temporary bans after each incident, then come back to do it again.

This is something totally different to calling others to task about what they have said or asking them to back up claims.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: leaf on October 14, 2011, 08:09
There are certain posters who are banned but then come back and cause trouble again. Iit might be good to not cut them as much slack as you have in the past.

That's what has sometimes confused me, when someone is banned then shows up straight away again with a different ID. Is there no way to ban an IP address rather than an MSG account?


When a ban is given, their I.P. address, email and username are all banned.  It is only effective if their IP address stays the same.  If they go to a cafe, school, work or their IP address is renewed there is really nothing anyone can to do to stop a person from signing up again.. except to ban them again.  Sooner or later though, the cat and mouse game gets tiring and the person usually quits signing up.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on October 14, 2011, 08:25
The biggest problem with this site is this very thing. Yes to the vote.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: michealo on October 14, 2011, 08:25
What about looking at the posters who have a large number of people ignoring them?

I suspect that they are the chief offenders
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 14, 2011, 08:44
When a ban is given, their I.P. address, email and username are all banned.  It is only effective if their IP address stays the same.  If they go to a cafe, school, work or their IP address is renewed there is really nothing anyone can to do to stop a person from signing up again.. except to ban them again.  Sooner or later though, the cat and mouse game gets tiring and the person usually quits signing up.

Okay got ya. Wow, it's scary how far some people have gone to post repeatedly after a ban!
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: fotografer on October 14, 2011, 08:55
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on October 14, 2011, 09:07
I never posted as anonymous and have no problem with confirmed identity - either public or only known to Leaf - but I understand that someone may wish to stay anonymous, especially towards agencies.

What is not acceptable is using anonymity for personal attacks or foul language, which is happening a lot lately, although not as often as in some other forums.

So I voted "depends". Confirmed identity only known to Leaf may be a good compromise. We uploaded our ID to so many sites, I wouldn't mind sending ID to msg as well, which I trust more than some agencies.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Blufish on October 14, 2011, 09:19
I think in theory this is a good idea. Privately checked by you is a good idea. I have been taking a long hiatus from this site because of the shenanigans, attacks and just plain moronic tones and arguments that have taken place in the past. This site can be very difficult for new users, as they are repeatedly treated as if their thoughts and opinions don't matter unless you have a portfolio that others find an acceptable level.

So whatever you come up with to help with the civility, I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on October 14, 2011, 09:23
Of those who like complete anonymity, I ask why? What is it that you are afraid of?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ShadySue on October 14, 2011, 09:24
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Yup, or if Leaf chose another moderator or two just to ease the workload if if should become too much.
As explained on another thread I'm only quasi-anonymous, but don't want my own name openly on the forum.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 14, 2011, 09:28
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem.

Hmm. Istock's never, to my knowledge, been accused of victimising people for saying stuff off-site, it's true. But it's not noted for paying attention to contributors' concerns, either.

I don't know, when it comes actual individual situations (not major policy issues) you know you are going to get a response from an email or call to IStock, and in a reasonable time frame. It's hard for me to keep the two separate, but if I take a step back I have to admit that this aspect of contributor relations has been good at IS considering the size of their operation

This is a bit of a tangent, but that hasn't been my experience with iStock and being ignored on certain issues happened while I was exclusive. I don't mean every contact ended that way - many were fine - but there were certain areas of the organization that behaved very poorly, IMO.

Back on topic, if showing identity to the moderators - a buyer or a contributor account at a major site - to get the graphics under our names were all that being confirmed required, I'd be more inclined to say OK. The only remaining issue would be whether people trusted you (the admin) not to out them to an agency if they asked you for that information. I still don't know if the benefits outweigh putting you (admin) in that position - we can all tell a troll when we see one; don't need identities to figure that out.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: MikLav on October 14, 2011, 10:20
I don't think it would have many benefits but it might certainly bring some drawbacks (those who want to stay anonymous because of the agencies as mentioned above)

I have no problems to provide any additional proof of my own identity to Tyler but I think we better don't have it mandatory in MSG.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Maui on October 14, 2011, 10:24
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, either.

But I am a member on another forum where the owner asks for the true identity and keeps it private. And believe me, the tone on that forum is not more civilized than here.  ::)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: luissantos84 on October 14, 2011, 10:29
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, either.

But I am a member on another forum where the owner asks for the true identity and keeps it private. And believe me, the tone on that forum is not more civilized than here.  ::)

what is it? I wanna join :)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Maui on October 14, 2011, 10:32
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, either.

But I am a member on another forum where the owner asks for the true identity and keeps it private. And believe me, the tone on that forum is not more civilized than here.  ::)

what is it? I wanna join :)

You need to understand german  ;)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 10:41
I am new here, just joined today. I would say its hard to take somebody seriously or give credibillity to someone hiding behind a pseudonym. For all we know, like myself, we could come here pretending we have ports of thousands of pictures, pretending we know everything but behind the scenes we are just, nothings.
I suppose using a pseudonym in a forum is ok as long as you dont intend to start telling members what to do and so on.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: RacePhoto on October 14, 2011, 10:52
Of those who like complete anonymity, I ask why? What is it that you are afraid of?

Mostly if they are being truthful, (1) fear of retaliation from some agencies, for what someone might write here. FT came out and said they would ban and remove anyone (as sellers) who posted negative comments, even if it was on a public forum and not their site.

I don't think any other agency looks for negatives by reading here and retaliates, but the sad part is curtailing freedom of speech by an agency with threats. Even sadder is that people are in fear of the agency that's supposed to be working for US, that we can't express opinions.

There's one agency that I'm positive has shills reading and responding and voting their rank up, but even they don't appear to retaliate for negative comments from members. They just have a new shill account disagree and write some flowery compliment how wonder the agency is and how much money they make there.  ::)

My opinion is anyone who can be anonymous will feel they (2) don't have a need to be honest or stand behind what they write here. Invites negativity, as others have pointed out, abusive attacks and irresponsible posts because They Are Anonymous! It opens up the avenues for claiming things that aren't true about sales or their portfolios. Like RPIs that are 20 times higher than even the best people on IS, from Fotolia? Big sales from some small sub agency with low prices... But won't show anything because (reason #3) a fear of copycats.

Copycats as in, my Microstock is so wonderful that people would copy it and steal my business. I'm skeptical that anyone does anything, so exclusive and such a niche that it isn't also covered by dozens of others already. 15 million pictures on SS and they have a controlled niche? I doubt that, but no one will answer, because they don't want the imitations, I'll never know? LOL  ;D

Oh yes #4 - duplicate accounts so they can write from their real name and have one persona and from the troll account and have the other. I don't see much difference because of what Leaf has posted. Personally a second account with a fake ID is no different from only one account that's anonymous. No accountability, no standing behind what someone may write. In my opinion the fake accounts are identical to anonymous accounts. Someone point out why they aren't?

An exclusive section for people with confirmed, real identities (real name or sellers pseudo from an agency) would be interesting and then the anonymous trolls could keep playing in the cat box and the real people would have a sanitized area to share with other real people.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Sadstock on October 14, 2011, 11:08
First I wanted to thank you for maintain MSG as it’s been a fantastic resource for me over the last year.  Couple of different thoughts.

1) In the original post, Leaf, you suggest one benefit would be that agencies would be more likely to listen to contributors whose ID had been verified.  Unless they can see that information themselves, having you vouch for us as actual contributors will likely not make agencies any more receptive to our critiques.  

2) MSG is a great resource for contributors in part because people can, if they choose, to share information and opinions about the agencies without the risk of retaliation.  Anything you post on the internet is effectively forever.  Today what you post about an agency might not be a problem, who knows about tomorrow.

Call me a wimp, but if I were using my own name/identity, even if it was only shared with Leaf, I would engage in a lot more self censorship about what I say about agencies in general.  I also would never have undertaken the project of tracking partners.  No way to know how the individual agencies will react to having this info compiled and shared, so I would not have taken that risk.  

3) Lively debate on microstock topics is very important for us to grapple with new developments in the industry, as it will over time produce the best insights and critiques.  Unfortunately lively debate slips into crude/rude behavior very quickly, particularly on the internet.  For better or worse, I've never participated anywhere online that it was not present to some degree.

Not to discourage you from trying new ideas to address it, but I think the most effective solution is less tolerance for bad behavior.  There are a few people here who constantly post provocative messages, seemingly not to engage in productive debate, but designed to stir up a fight.  I'd encourage you to be more aggressive in addressing those individuals as their input would likely not be missed.   :)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 11:17
First I wanted to thank you for maintain MSG as it’s been a fantastic resource for me over the last year.  Couple of different thoughts.

1) In the original post, Leaf, you suggest one benefit would be that agencies would be more likely to listen to contributors whose ID had been verified.  Unless they can see that information themselves, having you vouch for us as actual contributors will likely not make agencies any more receptive to our critiques.  

2) MSG is a great resource for contributors in part because people can, if they choose, to share information and opinions about the agencies without the risk of retaliation.  Anything you post on the internet is effectively forever.  Today what you post about an agency might not be a problem, who knows about tomorrow.

Call me a wimp, but if I were using my own name/identity, even if it was only shared with Leaf, I would engage in a lot more self censorship about what I say about agencies in general.  I also would never have undertaken the project of tracking partners.  No way to know how the individual agencies will react to having this info compiled and shared, so I would not have taken that risk.  

3) Lively debate on microstock topics is very important for us to grapple with new developments in the industry, as it will over time produce the best insights and critiques.  Unfortunately lively debate slips into crude/rude behavior very quickly, particularly on the internet.  For better or worse, I've never participated anywhere online that it was not present to some degree.

Not to discourage you from trying new ideas to address it, but I think the most effective solution is less tolerance for bad behavior.  There are a few people here who constantly post provocative messages, seemingly not to engage in productive debate, but designed to stir up a fight.  I'd encourage you to be more aggressive in addressing those individuals as their input would likely not be missed.   :)

provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean. I have been a member of the toughest forum in the world, makes the MSG look like a kindergaden and when the moderators decided to look into the members, it turned out that the most outspoken ones, controversial members,  was the most genuine of them all.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 11:24
I am new here, just joined today. I would say its hard to take somebody seriously or give credibillity to someone hiding behind a pseudonym. For all we know, like myself, we could come here pretending we have ports of thousands of pictures, pretending we know everything but behind the scenes we are just, nothings.
I suppose using a pseudonym in a forum is ok as long as you dont intend to start telling members what to do and so on.

Who on earth are you?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 11:33
Tyler, I really strongly urge you not to require identity checks for people posting here.  The ability to post anonymously is the main reason this forum has such an open and free exchange of opinions.  If you take that protection of anonymity away, you will find far fewer honest discussions and the industry will have lost a valuable resource.  

Although I have tried posting anonymously, I find that I prefer posting as myself.  However I do find myself holding back and watching my words.  I very much appreciate the contributions of those who are able to post more freely under the cloak of anonymity.    

I applaud your attempts to moderate the forum and keep it free of trolls.  However, trolls quickly reveal themselves as such by the things they post.  Any intelligent person will ultimately judge a post by its logic, not the name associated with it.  You have already provided us the useful tool of the ignore button for dealing with nuisance posters.  

Please Tyler, don't risk these forums' honest flow of ideas and information in an effort to deal with some annoying or over the top posts.  Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 11:33
I am new here, just joined today. I would say its hard to take somebody seriously or give credibillity to someone hiding behind a pseudonym. For all we know, like myself, we could come here pretending we have ports of thousands of pictures, pretending we know everything but behind the scenes we are just, nothings.
I suppose using a pseudonym in a forum is ok as long as you dont intend to start telling members what to do and so on.

Who on earth are you?

For a beginner I am not doing too bad. Two mails already, telling me they liked my post. Why do you not like it? have I caused you any problems? if so I am sorry. An honest and steady flow of opinions can only come from people who declare themselves, in this forum that is. What they do on the micro sites is another matter but in a forum concerning the entire industry?  ofcourse you should post under your real identity. Goes without saying.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 11:46
I am new here, just joined today. I would say its hard to take somebody seriously or give credibillity to someone hiding behind a pseudonym. For all we know, like myself, we could come here pretending we have ports of thousands of pictures, pretending we know everything but behind the scenes we are just, nothings.
I suppose using a pseudonym in a forum is ok as long as you dont intend to start telling members what to do and so on.

Who on earth are you?

For a beginner I am not doing too bad. Two mails already, telling me they liked my post. Why do you not like it? have I caused you any problems? if so I am sorry. An honest and steady flow of opinions can only come from people who declare themselves, in this forum that is. What they do on the micro sites is another matter but in a forum concerning the entire industry?  ofcourse you should post under your real identity. Goes without saying.

So you are not honest? According to your definition of yourself.

I never said that I don't like what you posted, I merely asked you to identify yourself. Please don't misrepresent me.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cthoman on October 14, 2011, 11:48
I have nothing against anonymity either. It's not for me, but I understand why people want it. Besides, are anonymous posters really the problem? You can act like a jerk with or without the cloak of secrecy. I know from personal experience.  ;D
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Pixart on October 14, 2011, 11:52
I am refraining from voting.

If you want to have verified members, I believe the only way you can do it is to have a verified members forum area where we can speak freely as ourselves.

I removed my links about 4 years ago when, and I think the exact words in that threat were:  "You people are a bunch of hypocrites... as a matter of fact, I'm going to....." and he/she went to Dreamstime and flagged keywords in our photos.  It's no secret who I am, or where you can find me, but if you want to be somehow vengeful to anyone i.e. "That person (who I just had a spat with on MSG) is using my photos as source material for illustrations...  this person has their port immediately suspended from SS.

BUT ASIDE FROM THE FORUM - wouldn't it be a good idea to have a verified member panel/guild/collective.  We place ourselves on the list, we have votes and when an issue comes up - and a majority of us agree on how to proceed, ONE VOICE represents the group and presents our concerns as they arise.  It isn't exactly a union, but if suddenly a body of 60,000 photos and illustrations has a unified/verified voice THEY might take it with more credit than each of us whining on a forum.

And, having my user name on display helps control my sarcasm in most cases.  If I was anonymous I don't think I would exercise that self control.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 11:57


BUT ASIDE FROM THE FORUM - wouldn't it be a good idea to have a verified member panel/guild/collective.  We place ourselves on the list, we have votes and when an issue comes up - and a majority of us agree on how to proceed, ONE VOICE represents the group and presents our concerns as they arise.  It isn't exactly a union, but if suddenly a body of 60,000 photos and illustrations has a unified/verified voice THEY might take it with more credit than each of us whining on a forum.


Very good idea IMHO. 
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: FD on October 14, 2011, 11:59
provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.
You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 12:14
provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.
You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Ofcourse, like Attila The Nun. Your real identity I presume?  how very ironic.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 12:17
I believe real identities should be required. it prevents bashing behind anonymity and allows for qualification of comments and experience. I would also support Tyler requiring verification upon registration, even if a user chooses to be anonymous in the forum to avoid agency backlash.

another thing Tyler, is that bringing back the ignore stats has fueled the sophomoric attitude that pervades here. I realize the quickest accusation at me will be that with 31 members ignoring me I'm biased. I'm not making the suggestion for that reason. I can be very blunt and people react, and I realize my tone is not conveyed well in a forum. it is what it is. not to mention as an iStock exclusive, I'm a relative minority here. but I am not anonymous and I stand behind my comments or I readily apologize for any if appropriate. the point being that allowing people to count ignore stats is entirely childish and it is a game that add fuels to the fire in already negative threads here. keep the function, lose the public rating visibility. keep reputations, that function seems to be used well.

allowing anonymous users to post freely also allows for multiple accounts and trolling running amuck. as it does here frequently.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: pancaketom on October 14, 2011, 12:27
I don't think requiring true identity would be all that good of an idea, especially with at least one agency publicly stating they would take retribution for things said in public fora.

That said, some of the spats and arguments are pretty annoying and childish, and people coming back repeatedly with different usernames is annoying.

A side forum for only people that are verified might be nice though.

Generally I'd advocate for a pretty loose hand on the reigns here, but when people start insulting each other directly as opposed to disagreeing with what they said, it just gets messy, so go ahead and delete that stuff. Sometimes it might be tongue in cheek or meant as a joke, but that can be hard to convey with text. Just because you put a smiley after an insult doesn't mean it is ok.

I do appreciate this forum and most of its members. Over time there are some I have come to value their opinions more than others. Some people just seem to talk a big game but don't really follow it up. Maybe they actually do have a good game, but since they don't follow it up their posts don't carry as much weight for me. When a discussion descends into a pissing contest I usually either grab the popcorn or stop reading.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 12:35
I don't think requiring true identity would be all that good of an idea, especially with at least one agency publicly stating they would take retribution for things said in public fora.

That said, some of the spats and arguments are pretty annoying and childish, and people coming back repeatedly with different usernames is annoying.

A side forum for only people that are verified might be nice though.

Generally I'd advocate for a pretty loose hand on the reigns here, but when people start insulting each other directly as opposed to disagreeing with what they said, it just gets messy, so go ahead and delete that stuff. Sometimes it might be tongue in cheek or meant as a joke, but that can be hard to convey with text. Just because you put a smiley after an insult doesn't mean it is ok.

I do appreciate this forum and most of its members. Over time there are some I have come to value their opinions more than others. Some people just seem to talk a big game but don't really follow it up. Maybe they actually do have a good game, but since they don't follow it up their posts don't carry as much weight for me. When a discussion descends into a pissing contest I usually either grab the popcorn or stop reading.

good post...I agree with everything you said and I like the idea of a side forum with verified identities too.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 13:24
provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.
You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Ofcourse, like Attila The Nun. Your real identity I presume?  how very ironic.

In the end, it was an epic fail, wasn't it, Bettan?  You hoped to prove that anonymity was bad and all that happened was people took you with a pinch of salt.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gbalex on October 14, 2011, 13:27
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.

We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.

The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread,I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.

So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.


Well said, I originally joined MSG because it offered a frank place to discuss aspects of the business without ramifications from the various micros. I also appreciated that fact that there are strong individuals here with significant business experience in the industry who were able to frankly speak their mind and discuss the various elephants in the microstock room.  That environment has been lost if the room fosters censored see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil communication.  

Are you really doing your visitors a favor if you leave them vulnerable by fostering censorship to honest discussion and frank debate?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gbalex on October 14, 2011, 13:46
There's definitely a very fine line to tread.
It gets to be a real problem when there are those who aim to use any forum they contribute to as a marketing tool for their business or to set themselves up as gurus.

There are those who want complete control over any interaction they have on a forum so they can present themselves in the best light possible regardless of where the truth lies. I know that this has led some on other forums (SS for example) to build up relationships with moderators to effectively shut down any questioning of their position and to have posts outing untruths deleted. As well as building up small gangs like in a school playground that get PMed to post on queue and bully other forum members.

What this ultimately means is that you end up with a forum no one in the know would ever contemplate reading, let alone contributing to.

You made some great points here, while these individuals and the site may benefit monetarily by increased exposure; ultimately censorship  destroys healthy and honest interaction within the community!
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: click_click on October 14, 2011, 13:53
Of those who like complete anonymity, I ask why? What is it that you are afraid of?
Speaking my mind freely without the fear of getting kicked out of an agency because of it.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:07
MSG might as well be censored by a moderator, because it is censored by bullies, usually hiding behind anonymity. while I agree that you should not have to risk your account by speaking your mind, you should not be allowed to use that protection as a weapon against other contributors. there's a line that is regularly crossed here and being anonymous allows it to be crossed far more easily.

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Digital66 on October 14, 2011, 14:08
Tyler, I really strongly urge you not to require identity checks for people posting here.  The ability to post anonymously is the main reason this forum has such an open and free exchange of opinions.  If you take that protection of anonymity away, you will find far fewer honest discussions and the industry will have lost a valuable resource.  
I think exactly the same.    

Requiring confirmed identities would be a big mistake for MSG.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Slovenian on October 14, 2011, 14:12
If this suggestion would become a requirement, imagine the size of the gap (or better said emptiness) left by my leaving ;D
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 14:16
provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.
You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Ofcourse, like Attila The Nun. Your real identity I presume?  how very ironic.

In the end, it was an epic fail, wasn't it, Bettan?  You hoped to prove that anonymity was bad and all that happened was people took you with a pinch of salt.

Its their prerogative and my treat to them.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: click_click on October 14, 2011, 14:24
I think the ignore button works wonders.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:29
^ you probably won't see my post since it seems you're lucky #32...but your post makes a point. instead of stating why you disagree, or welcoming discussion, you've posted an inflammatory, dead end response. aren't we beyond the popularity games of high school at this point?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 14:30
If this suggestion would become a requirement, imagine the size of the gap (or better said emptiness) left by my leaving ;D

This is the most persuasive argument I've read in favor of requiring identities. ;)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 14:33
MSG might as well be censored by a moderator, because it is censored by bullies, usually hiding behind anonymity. while I agree that you should not have to risk your account by speaking your mind, you should not be allowed to use that protection as a weapon against other contributors. there's a line that is regularly crossed here and being anonymous allows it to be crossed far more easily.

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

before joining this forum I did a bit of searching. Only in this thread alone, there are four people, anonymous ofcourse but doing their best to destroy and drumming up a verbal fight. The moderator here must be incredibly slow, havent caught on to it yet and probably wont do either. Not streetwise enough.
These four people are in almost every thread, allowed to destroy and gutting every comment and thread there is.

how come?  and who are the moderators?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:34
Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol. I think it would make discussions more honest if people couldn't hide. as I said earlier, I agree with some means of keeping anonymity in the threads, but Tyler should have access and require that accounts are verified. to avoid multiple accounts and trolls, as well as keeping people aware that at least someone knows who they are to curb all-out attacks. I learned over the years to ignore them for the most part, but lots of people get discouraged and I think it benefits all of us to have a larger representation of opinions here.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: madelaide on October 14, 2011, 14:38
Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:44
Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.

good point
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 14:53
Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol.

What can I say?  I don't get high either, but still favor legalizing pot for those that want to use it :)

I totally appreciate your point.  However, I mentioned I frequently have pulled my punches because of being out in the open as I am.  I am glad anonymity affords some the ability to be more blunt.  

I know you are one who always speaks their mind, but Istock exclusives are in a unique position there.  Some other sites are known for canceling accounts of outspoken members of this forum.  Ask JoAnn or Bobby Deal.  

I would be amenable to a solution where members revealed their identities to Tyler, but still remained anonymous on the forum.  As long as Tyler is willing to shoulder that burden.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:59
Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol.

What can I say?  I don't get high either, but still favor legalizing pot for those that want to use it :)


LOL, I agree! and I agree with your other points. I certainly don't think people should risk their accounts. but I think there's somewhere in the middle that would benefit the discussions here.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: bettan on October 14, 2011, 15:06
Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.

Quote: "I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows".  Openess?  well its a nice thought but sadly, just in this very thread alone, its as close to the chest as it comes. All sarcastic and ironic postings comes from three members of which I couldnt even guess who they were. They have no proof of credibillity or anything. just, nome de plumes.
Know the culprits?  thats no problem, just go through the postings of just about every thread there is. You will find the same pseudos.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 14, 2011, 15:07
Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol.

What can I say? ...

I totally appreciate your point.  However, I mentioned I frequently have pulled my punches because of being out in the open as I am.  I am glad anonymity affords some the ability to be more blunt. ...Some other sites are known for canceling accounts of outspoken members of this forum.  Ask JoAnn or Bobby Deal.  

I don't see the irony in someone who is open advocating for the option for people who wish to remain anonymous. And as far as the consequences being real, as Lisa pointed out, I know that they are. Other people can avoid that sort of underhanded agency retaliation and I fail to see any sufficiently strong basis for denying them that.

And as far as SNP's descriptions of this forum, I think she and I must be visiting different places as I don't recognize the wild west she describes. But as I said, if a thread becomes a slug fest I just stop reading. Life's too short.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: nruboc on October 14, 2011, 15:11
How about required confirmed identities with the option to designate each post as anonymous or not (Default not). Then people can feel free to voice their feeling about agencies anonymously. However, if someone makes a personal attack anonymously on a non-anonymous member, they get outed for their cowardly act.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 14, 2011, 15:29
The issue we have here beside anonymous having a license to attack anonymously is that it will make agency officials and/or Representitives not wanting to post messages, answer questions and/or concerns without the fear of personal attacks. They don't have to come here but they do and people should appreciate that even if what they post or answers they give is not to your satisfaction. If anonymous wants to remained anonymous then they need to be confirmed by Tyler. Maybe charge them too ... lol
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Smiling Jack on October 14, 2011, 15:34
Thank you Tyler for all the "blood sweat and tears" you have put into this forum. I have learned a lot from belonging to this forum. As for the childless trash that is throw into this forum every once in a while- I am a big boy and I know garbage when I see it. So I guess what I am trying to say- Don't change to much-I like it as it is. Thanks again Tyler.
Smiling Jack
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cthoman on October 14, 2011, 15:49
at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

Really? Maybe, those photographers should grow a pair. I'm kidding.  ;D

Seriously though, I don't think it's really all that unwelcoming. You don't get as much sugar-coating here, but I find that a little more realistic. The world isn't all unicorns and lolly pops or hugs and rainbows. I would think as artists most of us are used to some criticism (I know I am).

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case because minor disagreements seem to quickly turn into name calling. And here we are with a thread about it. Maybe, everybody should get out the metaphorical sandpaper and toughen up their skin.  ;D
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: nruboc on October 14, 2011, 15:50
The issue we have here beside anonymous having a license to attack anonymously is that it will make agency officials and/or Representitives not wanting to post messages, answer questions and/or concerns without the fear of personal attacks. They don't have to come here but they do and people should appreciate that even if what they post or answers they give is not to your satisfaction. If anonymous wants to remained anonymous then they need to be confirmed by Tyler. Maybe charge them too ... lol

If you were responding to my post, then I think it still apples, as agency representatives are non-anonymous members, so if any personal attacks are made, the cowardly confirmed identity gets outed.

This also would give the moderator an option to hide any anonymous posts they find offensive and offer the OP to repost using thier Out'ed identity or it doesn't get posted at all.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 14, 2011, 16:00
The issue we have here beside anonymous having a license to attack anonymously is that it will make agency officials and/or Representitives not wanting to post messages, answer questions and/or concerns without the fear of personal attacks. They don't have to come here but they do and people should appreciate that even if what they post or answers they give is not to your satisfaction. If anonymous wants to remained anonymous then they need to be confirmed by Tyler. Maybe charge them too ... lol

If you were responding to my post, then I think it still apples, as agency representatives are non-anonymous members, so if any personal attacks are made, the cowardly confirmed identity gets outed.
No, I was not responding to your post. I did not see your post. I believe I started to write before you posted. I had walked away from the pc and then came back to finish up what I was writing.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: nruboc on October 14, 2011, 16:01
The issue we have here beside anonymous having a license to attack anonymously is that it will make agency officials and/or Representitives not wanting to post messages, answer questions and/or concerns without the fear of personal attacks. They don't have to come here but they do and people should appreciate that even if what they post or answers they give is not to your satisfaction. If anonymous wants to remained anonymous then they need to be confirmed by Tyler. Maybe charge them too ... lol

If you were responding to my post, then I think it still apples, as agency representatives are non-anonymous members, so if any personal attacks are made, the cowardly confirmed identity gets outed.
No, I was not responding to your post. I did not see your post. I believe I started to write before you posted. I had walked away from the pc and then came back to finish up what I was writing.

Ah, ok
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 16:02
Honestly, why would anyone be "scared" of harsh words on a website, especially if they are only here as a representative of an agency?

Outright insults are deleted ASAP and any sensible person will judge remarks according to the credibility of the author - and you soon lose credibility if you try to flame people.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 16:18
at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

Really? Maybe, those photographers should grow a pair. I'm kidding.  ;D

Seriously though, I don't think it's really all that unwelcoming. You don't get as much sugar-coating here, but I find that a little more realistic. The world isn't all unicorns and lolly pops or hugs and rainbows. I would think as artists most of us are used to some criticism (I know I am).

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case because minor disagreements seem to quickly turn into name calling. And here we are with a thread about it. Maybe, everybody should get out the metaphorical sandpaper and toughen up their skin.  ;D

growing a pair  :D okay, point taken. look, no one wants hearts and unicorns. but anyone suggesting that this forum is policed adequately for personal attacks obviously has a different boundary than me. sarcasm and disagreement is totally fine...but it goes well beyond that. anyways, this is why it's a discussion. my earlier post was not an exaggeration, and as proartwork has pointed out, I've spoken to some (who would be considered) major contributors that feel this way about MSG and don't even bother here because of the impression that it's all sourgrapes, gripers and attitude. I come here because despite that, my experience has toughened me up a bit and I still glean a lot of great information here. but there is still too much garbage and insult to wade through.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 14, 2011, 16:20
Honestly, why would anyone be "scared" of harsh words on a website, especially if they are only here as a representative of an agency?

It becomes a distraction and not productive, something Tyler and I'm sure most are trying to avoid. There are times when messages should not be clouded by distraction.

"Progress is made by attacking problems than attacking people."
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 16:34
@Jo Ann - I know how much you add to the industry in terms of discussion, even though we often disagree when it comes to tactics. I'm sorry to hear you have been retaliated against. I'm glad you continue to be forthcoming with your opinions. you are always respectful, even in disagreement.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Freedom on October 14, 2011, 16:47
Well, if you don't like any anonymous users, you don't have to listen to their opinions. Just click the Ignore link. They don't exist anymore for your sake. I only ignore one person, not because that person was anonymous, I felt that person was too biased and aggressive, not to me, but in general.

When we joined, we made a choice, some preferred to use their real ID, some not. No I don't think confirmed ID will add values to the opinion. Anonymous opinions are still opinions from valid persons. The important thing is the point, not the person.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Pixart on October 14, 2011, 16:57
A know of a couple independents have been sent private messages from agencies telling them they would close their accounts if they despised the agency so much that they would state their opinions here.  I don't remember exactly what the facts were (I think one of them was a language misunderstanding actually), but I do know that there is a big difference between standing behind your name and speaking the truth vs standing behind a cloak of anonymity and being abusive or slanderous.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gostwyck on October 14, 2011, 17:00
I believe real identities should be required.

You say that but in fact you posted anonymously, under several different aliases, for some months. I got the impression that it was only because your style of writing and your views were so overtly distinctive that you gave up on anonymity.

Why would you want to ban people from doing what you have chosen to do yourself? Am I '"bullying" you now because I have pointed out the hypocracy in your arguement and I disagree with you?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 17:09
gostwyck, lol, you know why I went anonymous briefly. frankly it was an attempt to avoid the harassment I felt was being allowed to occur, largely at your hand. that was years ago though, and we've discussed this and it's not something worth rehashing. I've really appreciated your more conciliatory communication lately. don't worry, I'm not confusing it for respect or deference ;-) and no, disagreement is not what I consider bullying.

I briefly changed my username, multiple times, and then decided that I'm not the type of person who hides behind an anonymous moniker...and I also realized that the way I was communicating was ineffective and perceived as rude at times, even though it wasn't intended that way. I am sarcastic by nature and as someone stated earlier sarcasm comes across far better in person than in writing. before iStock, I had never really communicated in forums and I was not seasoned enough to realize I was taking things far too personally and being bossy myself.

I'm not trying to be a hypocrite. I'm not saying anyone should lose the ability to be anonymous with agencies, since there are indeed consequences to voicing an opinion against an agency. but I do think that some qualification of accounts should be allowed in order to keep people from going off the rails, as so frequently happens here.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on October 14, 2011, 17:29
I'm not going though 4 pages of this stuff so I'll just add my opinion.

I think it may add some value but I'm guessing that would eliminate the ability to be anonymous. If so, I think it would it do more harm than good. While some people hide their identities to enable them to attack people, there are probably more people that have good reason to be anonymous. And for those people, myself included, would probably become lurkers or just stop coming here.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 17:48
Please don't force Paulie Walnuts out into the open!  I would really miss his avatar photo :D
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Mantis on October 14, 2011, 17:50
^ you probably won't see my post since it seems you're lucky #32...but your post makes a point. instead of stating why you disagree, or welcoming discussion, you've posted an inflammatory, dead end response. aren't we beyond the popularity games of high school at this point?

I am anonymous but I don't have a single person on ignore even though there are times I want to.  The reason? I enjoy reading comments from people for which I disagree because sometimes I change my mind.  Now, for me, I have a few reasons for remaining anonymous and one of them was already pointed out.  Someone started flagging unnecessary keywords on my images at DT because I disagreed with them in a forum discussion (not on MSG, of course).  The other reason is that for simple posts in Istock, I have received three threatening site mails.  On another forum I am banned already for calling the BS card with a "the next one we will close your account".  None of these posts used foul language but DID make someone else look like a fool.  If that can happen on their own forums I am a little nervous about what can happen here when certain threads are followed such as sensitive FT and IS threads. Not all of us anonymous posters are trolls or hide behind a cloak.  I make it a personal policy to never bash someones port because I think that is unfair since mine isn't available for someone to criticize.  However, like SNP, I call them like I see them just as I would if I weren't anonymous.  Some people call that cowardly...you are anonymous so you say anything.  In my case, that isn't the issue.  Self policing is my personal policy.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 18:12
^ self-policing would be ideal if it worked. but as many have pointed out, it seems that there are serious consequences for having an opinion in our industry. that sucks. I've been verbally pushed around and wrist-slapped many times on iStock, sometimes I deserved it, sometimes it was pre-eptive and sometimes it was uncalled for and I was pi55ed off. but I also believe that companie's have the right to limit damage to their reputation, especially when it is libelous and inaccurate.

so again, the compromise seems anonymity is allowed, but qualified by an admin on MSG. no one here could honestly believe that their anonymity would be compromised by Tyler. it's fairly standard to require user registration on forums.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Mantis on October 14, 2011, 18:34
^ self-policing would be ideal if it worked. but as many have pointed out, it seems that there are serious consequences for having an opinion in our industry. that sucks. I've been verbally pushed around and wrist-slapped many times on iStock, sometimes I deserved it, sometimes it was pre-eptive and sometimes it was uncalled for and I was pi55ed off. but I also believe that companie's have the right to limit damage to their reputation, especially when it is libelous and inaccurate.

so again, the compromise seems anonymity is allowed, but qualified by an admin on MSG. no one here could honestly believe that their anonymity would be compromised by Tyler. it's fairly standard to require user registration on forums.

I really don't disagree with you.  There is always a gray area.  I'd go along with Tyler if that was the case.  However, if he required our identity to be public then Tyler has to allow us to disengage our real identity from the current anonymous one. Probably easy to do but we'd lose all of our rankings and such.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 14, 2011, 18:38
Yeah, that would be important. Forgive the spelling in my last post please, typing on my iPhone is brutal and I keep missing the stupid auto-fill words it THINKS I am typing...
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: FD on October 14, 2011, 19:44
In the end, it was an epic fail, wasn't it, Bettan?  You hoped to prove that anonymity was bad and all that happened was people took you with a pinch of salt.
Nah I just ignored the fresh troll. I'm not that anonymous and Baldricks Trousers isn't, at least not to me. Maybe we became anonymous to avoid vindicative trolls. I also think people should be judged on their posts and on their track record. Anybody making bold statements an hour after signing up doesn't belong to that group.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: madelaide on October 14, 2011, 21:34
.
You're back!
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Kone on October 14, 2011, 21:34
Hi all,
I voted "yes", but to be honest, I don't care.

Only reason that I would say "no" is because I don't want to miss out on posts written by anonymous posters. I am one of them but the senior microstockers on this forum know me.
As somebody mentioned earlier, if you take our information, you should be very careful with how you share it.

Kone
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Kone on October 14, 2011, 21:38
.
You're back!

No he is not, I like FD better! ;)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on October 14, 2011, 22:29
.
You're back!

No he is not, I like FD better! ;)
Yeah, dude, what's with all of the identity changes?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: FD on October 15, 2011, 01:41
Yeah, dude, what's with all of the identity changes?
I passed by Thailand and had a sex change. They asked me if I wanted to change my mind but I said no thanks, I'm quite happy with the one I have now.  ;) [End of off-topic]
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 15, 2011, 02:46
I removed my links about 4 years ago when, and I think the exact words in that threat were:  "You people are a bunch of hypocrites... as a matter of fact, I'm going to....." and he/she went to Dreamstime and flagged keywords in our photos.  It's no secret who I am, or where you can find me, but if you want to be somehow vengeful to anyone i.e. "That person (who I just had a spat with on MSG) is using my photos as source material for illustrations...  this person has their port immediately suspended from SS.


I never even considered this side of it, but that's another good point. Many of my ignores came after spats where people came on here complaining about having portfolios suspended then were outed as having copied others work etc. One person went to the trouble of creating multiple IDs and ignoring me with each one!
Having heard how far people go to re-troll on the forum after a ban you can bet that some of these crazies wouldn't think twice about contacting an agency and making false allegations resulting in a portfolio closure.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 08:18
What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.

I'm a 100% with you on that. Maybe the confirmation could be required by Leaf and he would have all the information on file but keep it confidential. In other words, if John Doe gives his real name and address, etc. and Leaf confirms that by whatever methods he needs to, and John Doe says he is going to use the name JohnAnonymous as a screen name, that's it. John Doe doesn't get to keep registering. It will require more admin work on Leaf's part, but at least we will know the polls are more correct and we won't have to keep seeing trolls come back reincarnated.

edit: I realized I missed a couple of pages of posts. Went back and re-read, and my comment above has already been mentioned by a couple of others.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 08:48
I think the ignore button is a great idea, I think being able to see how many ignores a person has is a great idea. But really, when it comes down to it, how reliable is it, actually? I see that JoAnn and Lisafx have almost as many ignores as I do, and yet you can't find two more professional, down-to-earth, and well-spoken people. You never really know why someone puts someone else on ignore. It could be for some silly reason, or maybe even the person ignoring is chauvinistic and thinks all women are idiots. Don't put too much stock in the ignores. It kind of follows my following thought...

I don't understand those people who are complaining that there are too many bullies, that many photographers don't come here because they think this forum is too negative, or too positive, or too whatever. If you don't like the forum, you have a choice...don't come here! If you can't put your big-girl panties on and pick and choose the ideas and thoughts that you personally want to take away from the forum, don't come here! If you don't like what one person says all the time, put them on ignore! You have choices, no one is making you participate! If you think you can do a better job, start your own forum! Or go find one that fits into your mold.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 15, 2011, 09:17
I think the ignore button is a great idea, I think being able to see how many ignores a person has is a great idea. But really, when it comes down to it, how reliable is it, actually? I see that JoAnn and Lisafx have almost as many ignores as I do, and yet you can't find two more professional, down-to-earth, and well-spoken people.

Thanks Cathy, but exactly the same can be said about you and lots of others here too.  :)

The point was made above that a lot of the ignores came around the same time, and are probably the same vindictive person with multiple identities.  But for the rest of the ignores, I think anyone who speaks their mind is bound to anger a few people now and then.  Only alternative is to just lurk, or never post anything of substance that anyone could disagree with.

But I do take your point that the ignore button is definitely not a panacea.  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. 
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: fotografer on October 15, 2011, 09:36

What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.
A way of stopping multiple identities would be to make it only possible to be anonymous if we pay to become Premium members.  Just about anybody can afford to pay once a year but nobody would want to have to keep paying it everytime they change their identity.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 15, 2011, 09:52
I think the ignore button is a great idea, I think being able to see how many ignores a person has is a great idea. But really, when it comes down to it, how reliable is it, actually?.....

It is all a bit random, trolls get a lot of ignores, but if you look through some of the profiles some people get ignores for consistently looking into cases of image theft (the culprits like to ignore them out of spite) and others, like luissantos84, seem to have had a load of people ignoring them just for asking why they had some other people ignoring them! (i.e. just out of mischievousness)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 10:23

What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.
A way of stopping multiple identities would be to make it only possible to be anonymous if we pay to become Premium members.  Just about anybody can afford to pay once a year but nobody would want to have to keep paying it everytime they change their identity.
Excellent idea.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 10:23

What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.
A way of stopping multiple identities would be to make it only possible to be anonymous if we pay to become Premium members.  Just about anybody can afford to pay once a year but nobody would want to have to keep paying it everytime they change their identity.

That's an excellent idea!

edit: posted at the same time as Paulie.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 10:25
snip
But I do take your point that the ignore button is definitely not a panacea.  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. 

Thanks for the heads up! I was wondering...
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 10:33
Thanks Cathy, but exactly the same can be said about you and lots of others here too.  :)

Thanks, and most definitely. Lots of good people here. I just picked you two as an example.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 15, 2011, 11:37
As a member, I don't see that I'm hurt in any way by any number of ignores of me.

If the discussions I engage in are productive and the people I'm intending to converse with are responding to me, any number of lurkers, trolls or others can have pressed the ignore button and I'd never know or be inconvenienced. I only go look at the number (after I try and remember where to find it) when there's a discussion like this.

As long as leaf doesn't ban us for having too many ignores, its harmless entertainment for those it entertains :)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: fotografer on October 15, 2011, 12:14
As a member, I don't see that I'm hurt in any way by any number of ignores of me.


Number of useful posts is a much better gauge of people.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 15, 2011, 12:41

What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.
A way of stopping multiple identities would be to make it only possible to be anonymous if we pay to become Premium members.  Just about anybody can afford to pay once a year but nobody would want to have to keep paying it everytime they change their identity.

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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 14:00

What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.
A way of stopping multiple identities would be to make it only possible to be anonymous if we pay to become Premium members.  Just about anybody can afford to pay once a year but nobody would want to have to keep paying it everytime they change their identity.

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.

And it should be so indicated to the rest of the forum that they are NOT confirmed.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 15, 2011, 14:10
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.

This makes no sense to me. How does that help the forums and their operation? 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.

I do like the idea of just noting whether someone has a confirmed identity or not with a graphic of some sort. Someone who wants to remain anonymous and not confirm their identity could do so but you are informing readers of that.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 14:15
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.

This makes no sense to me. How does that help the forums and their operation? 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.

I do like the idea of just noting whether someone has a confirmed identity or not with a graphic of some sort. Someone who wants to remain anonymous and not confirm their identity could do so but you are informing readers of that.

Yep, I agree.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 15, 2011, 14:58
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: RacePhoto on October 15, 2011, 16:08
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.

This makes no sense to me. How does that help the forums and their operation? 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.

I do like the idea of just noting whether someone has a confirmed identity or not with a graphic of some sort. Someone who wants to remain anonymous and not confirm their identity could do so but you are informing readers of that.

Yep, I agree.

Both of me agree too. I mean, ah... nevermind.  ;)

Yes the troll fee or anti-troll fee would be a way to support Leaf for the extra work he has to do to monitor and remove posts. Seems simple enough. Want to be anonymous, pay for membership and small maintenance fee, nothing huge please. Just enough to make it so people won't keep coming back with a new name every few months. And so the people who are in fear of agency retaliation don't have to get stuck for a big fee to protect their interests. Fair enough.

There's always the problem that people who have a good reason in their own mind, or people who just want to be anonymous for personal reasons, will be penalized because of someone else who's slightly abusive. Too bad that the good people get caught up in the fees because of actions of the others.

Maybe a better way would be pay as you go. Removed messages or locked threads, you get a small parking ticket and your account is locked until you pay the fine. That way honest people who want to protect them self from potential site retaliation, wouldn't have to pay anything.

I still find it upsetting and sad that artists have to live in fear of an agency, which is relying on us for materials! 16 tons what do you get? And speak badly about the boss, you may be removed and become a non-person. That's terrible! Maybe some day the people who say they got threatening emails from some agency can have someone else post them, so we can know the source. I already dropped the one that publicly said they would close accounts for what people wrote in other forums. FT doesn't miss me, I don't miss them. Fine mutual deal. Just wondering if there are any others who are creepy like that?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 15, 2011, 18:29
And it should be so indicated to the rest of the forum that they are NOT confirmed.

This is a great idea!  Just as we have the "premium member" designation under our names, we could also have "confirmed" or "unconfirmed".  I don't know that people should have to pay to be unconfirmed.  The designation would probably do the trick all by itself.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gbalex on October 15, 2011, 19:55
And it should be so indicated to the rest of the forum that they are NOT confirmed.

This is a great idea!  Just as we have the "premium member" designation under our names, we could also have "confirmed" or "unconfirmed".  I don't know that people should have to pay to be unconfirmed.  The designation would probably do the trick all by itself.

LOL...And this from the some of the friendliest members on the boards.

Tongue in cheek- Why stop there, if we fail to expose ourselves for scrutiny you could brand our foreheads with U's and ban us from the forums. ;P Yep that free google plus circle seems friendlier and more productive all the time.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cathyslife on October 15, 2011, 20:05
And it should be so indicated to the rest of the forum that they are NOT confirmed.

This is a great idea!  Just as we have the "premium member" designation under our names, we could also have "confirmed" or "unconfirmed".  I don't know that people should have to pay to be unconfirmed.  The designation would probably do the trick all by itself.

LOL...And this from the some of the friendliest members on the boards.

Tongue in cheek- Why stop there, if we fail to expose ourselves for scrutiny you could brand our foreheads with U's and ban us from the forums. ;P Yep that free google plus circle seems friendlier and more productive all the time.

Tongue in cheek...why thank you!  ;)

Or, if you want friendly, head on over to the istock forum. Everyone is very friendly there, too!
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: pancaketom on October 15, 2011, 20:57
And it should be so indicated to the rest of the forum that they are NOT confirmed.

This is a great idea!  Just as we have the "premium member" designation under our names, we could also have "confirmed" or "unconfirmed".  I don't know that people should have to pay to be unconfirmed.  The designation would probably do the trick all by itself.

LOL...And this from the some of the friendliest members on the boards.

Tongue in cheek- Why stop there, if we fail to expose ourselves for scrutiny you could brand our foreheads with U's and ban us from the forums. ;P Yep that free google plus circle seems friendlier and more productive all the time.

Tongue in cheek...why thank you!  ;)

Or, if you want friendly, head on over to the istock forum. Everyone is very friendly there, too!

except the admins
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: qwerty 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 15, 2011, 23:42
that's the problem....define "overboard"  ;)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: MatHayward 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.  
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 16, 2011, 01:28
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!!!!"
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: MatHayward on October 16, 2011, 01:47
I have no interest in joining some clique

That's just it....in my opinion you are already a member of a clique.  If you aren't already a part of it then God help you if you want to participate in this forum. 

It is of course just an opinion.  I can also see your point about who gives anybody the right to pass down this all knowing, all powerful wisdom.  I don't see that being a good thing either. 

I guess to amend my previous post what I ultimately would like to see is a private forum (or portion of this forum) with membership requirement and a strict approval process.  In other words, serious photographers only.

 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
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: MatHayward on October 16, 2011, 02:04
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.

I'm not sure what that means Mr. Trousers.  Would you elaborate?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: leaf on October 16, 2011, 02:21
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 16, 2011, 03:10
Typo
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 16, 2011, 03:14
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!
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Maui on October 16, 2011, 04:18
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: FD on October 16, 2011, 04:29
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stormchaser 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: FD on October 16, 2011, 04:59
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 16, 2011, 10:20
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Batman on October 16, 2011, 13:01
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Eireann 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 ... :)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 16, 2011, 17:57
[dup]
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 16, 2011, 18:17
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.   
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: luissantos84 on October 16, 2011, 18:18
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???
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 16, 2011, 18:36
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.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 16, 2011, 18:54
I understand being cautious, but surely if you're that worried you wouldn't be here risking your account to begin with.

I'm not sure what you mean.  I haven't disclosed any of my agency account IDs.  Nor would I.

I enjoy 'wild speculation' and see no need to discourage it.   But if the person running this site (sorry, we're not on a first name basis) wants it to be 'taken seriously' then of course he can introduce any new requirements and conditions he wants.   And I'll just have to go somewhere else with my wild speculations.  It's all fine.  That's what the web is for: free and open exchange of ideas.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gbalex on October 16, 2011, 19:11
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=search2;search=hacked (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=search2;search=hacked)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 16, 2011, 19:29
[url]http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=search2;search=hacked[/url] ([url]http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=search2;search=hacked[/url])


Sure.  It can happen just like that.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 16, 2011, 22:55
okay, well I can't really trump all the what ifs. yeah, if the site were hacked (again)...identities could be compromised. can't argue that.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: madelaide on October 17, 2011, 02:55
Would the ID need to be kept in the site? I guess that Leaf would just tick a "confirmed" box after verification.

Anyway, even if the site was hacked, what are the chances that personal information would be available to the agencies?
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: leaf on October 17, 2011, 06:35
Would the ID need to be kept in the site? I guess that Leaf would just tick a "confirmed" box after verification.

Anyway, even if the site was hacked, what are the chances that personal information would be available to the agencies?

If I confirmed identities it would NOT involve people sending me any ID like drivers licenses or passports.  it would be more in line with sending me a PM through one of the stock sites.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 17, 2011, 06:52
I actually thought that I did supply my identity when I signed up - not with any confirmation, perhaps, but I thought I had to say who I was.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: michealo on October 17, 2011, 07:06
Would the ID need to be kept in the site? I guess that Leaf would just tick a "confirmed" box after verification.

Anyway, even if the site was hacked, what are the chances that personal information would be available to the agencies?

If I confirmed identities it would NOT involve people sending me any ID like drivers licenses or passports.  it would be more in line with sending me a PM through one of the stock sites.

Bear in mind the sites read PMs, sitemails, etc
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 17, 2011, 07:49
Would the ID need to be kept in the site? I guess that Leaf would just tick a "confirmed" box after verification.

Anyway, even if the site was hacked, what are the chances that personal information would be available to the agencies?

If I confirmed identities it would NOT involve people sending me any ID like drivers licenses or passports.  it would be more in line with sending me a PM through one of the stock sites.

Bear in mind the sites read PMs, sitemails, etc

Excellent point. A driving license or passport would be more secure than sending a PM, unless some bizarre coding was involved.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Microbius on October 17, 2011, 09:11
I'm sure there's a way to get it done with PMs that's safe enough. eg. Tyler sends you a random number in a PM on MSG then you have to PM him on a micro site from your account with the same number.
Someone would have to hack MSG and have access to your sitemail on the micro site to work out exactly who you are.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 09:42
I think what some of you want is an MSG Facebook page, not a web forum. 
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: rimglow on October 17, 2011, 11:40
Personally I just don't pay attention to any posters who don't include a portfolio link.  I just assume they are not serious Microstockers, and are therefore irrelevant to my interests.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: aeonf on October 17, 2011, 12:25
Personally I just don't pay attention to any posters who don't include a portfolio link.  I just assume they are not serious Microstockers, and are therefore irrelevant to my interests.

Bad assumption.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: rimglow on October 17, 2011, 12:32
Personally I just don't pay attention to any posters who don't include a portfolio link.  I just assume they are not serious Microstockers, and are therefore irrelevant to my interests.

Bad assumption.


Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 13:32
To those of use old enough to remember Usenet, the demand to know posters' identities just seems weird.  I used internet usegroups for years, often to good advantage, without ever knowing who anyone actually was.  When web forums began replacing Usenet,  only the presentation changed; anonymity was still the rule.

But now we're in the era of Social Networking, where nothing is private, and in fact privacy itself is no longer 'cool' (right rimglow?).   I think many people are going to find out the hard way just how valuable privacy, and anonymity, really are.   Without them, who's going to be a whistleblower, or pass on interesting insider rumors?  Who's going to publicly rip into Getty, knowing their big-buck lawyers might be laying in wait?

And yes, I do have a Facebook page.



  
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 13:34
[dup]
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: aeonf on October 17, 2011, 13:41
I think I see what's happening now.

To those of use old enough to remember Usenet, the demand to know posters' identities just seems weird.  I used internet usegroups for years, often to good advantage, without ever knowing who anyone actually was.  When web forums began replacing Usenet,  only the presentation changed; anonymity was still the rule and the exception.

But now we're in the era of Social Networking, where nothing is private, and in fact privacy itself is no longer 'cool' (right rimglow?).   But I think many people are going to find out the hard way how valuable privacy, and anonymity, really are.   Without them, who's going to be a whistleblower, or pass on interesting insider rumors?  Who's going to publicly rip into Getty, knowing their big-buck lawyers might be laying in wait?

And yes, I do have a Facebook page.


Wow you are an old timer :)
I remember the days prior to the internet, a werid thing called "BBS" where forums did exist but took 24 hours to sync the messages between them...
(and yes I do have a FB page as well)

  
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 13:44

I remember the days prior to the internet, a werid thing called "BBS" where forums did exist but took 24 hours to sync the messages between them...
 

Sure, I used BBSs too.  They were cool.  The slowness of message transfers made for a different sort of exchange.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Come on this isn't National Security, people who claim they are afraid of agency retaliation I understand, an anonymous section for posts like that, might be an option. But then we get stalkers and hackers and things that can happen anywhere, including FB and Twitter and anywhere else.

What makes keeping an ID secret and not letting anyone know what your sellers name so important. If it's only about writing nasty messages about some agency, that's kind of weak. I mean, does every anonymous person here have some kind of cause and string of critical messages about agencies, that would cause them to be banned or punished? I don't think so. I enjoy the small number of people who think someone will steal their ideas. Kind of like taking a photo of you will steal your soul. I don't think anyone does anything so unique and special that it's at risk. We can see what sell, we can see best sellers, we can see top keywords, there are no Microstock Secrets.

So what's a real reason?

I'm with Rimglow, for some reason the anonymous people tend to be the trolls and rude, they hide behind their pseudo accounts. People who have a name or email connection, even if it's not real, something like a sellers name is fine. Known people tend to be a little calmer and know that their reputation is associated with their real identity. The anonymous factor just invites abuse.

No I don't think people need to send in drivers license or passports that's a bit over the top. Just that they have an email account or are actually identifiable Microstock sellers account with an agency.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: pancaketom on October 17, 2011, 14:03

I remember the days prior to the internet, a werid thing called "BBS" where forums did exist but took 24 hours to sync the messages between them...
 

Sure, I used BBSs too.  They were cool.  The slowness of message transfers made for a different sort of exchange.

you young puppies. I remember this thing called the post office where you would write messages on actual paper and stick them in a box and a few days later they would be delivered to someone else. It was so much clearer than smoke signals.

It is a bit amazing to think I've been using e-mail for 25 years.

I do wish there was some way to encourage civility without having to remove anonymity though. Not that there aren't plenty of people without anonymity who are uncivil. (maybe I am being too negative in that sentence?)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 14:09
I do wish there was some way to encourage civility without having to remove anonymity though.

This was fought out on Usenet for years.  The only answer is a moderator.   Unless maybe someone develops true AI, and the forum software can detect "rudeness".
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 14:19

I remember the days prior to the internet, a werid thing called "BBS" where forums did exist but took 24 hours to sync the messages between them...
 

Sure, I used BBSs too.  They were cool.  The slowness of message transfers made for a different sort of exchange.

you young puppies. I remember this thing called the post office where you would write messages on actual paper and stick them in a box and a few days later they would be delivered to someone else. It was so much clearer than smoke signals.

It is a bit amazing to think I've been using e-mail for 25 years.

I do wish there was some way to encourage civility without having to remove anonymity though. Not that there aren't plenty of people without anonymity who are uncivil. (maybe I am being too negative in that sentence?)

Nope you are correct. But at least some grumpy old man, we know who it is, not some multiple account little troll sitting in the basement grinning as he disrupts the forums while he's downing his six pack and a pizza.  :D Anonynimity just open the door and encourages some people, the rest it wouldn't matter if they were their full name or a random number. It's the person behind the messages and some people just go that way. I suppose I'm wrong when I think that requirig real names or account connections to an agency, would change anything?

There is a confirmed Alamy account forum on Yahoo. Very funny, it's almost all the same messages and people that are on the Alamy forums (or used to be) I gave up reading there, because it was a duplication. And the Alamy forums you can make up a pseudo and post messages, hardly any difference. Well one, Alamy forums are moderated and they have a tight leash on trouble makers.

That may be the other option. Which of course will bring screams of "Free Speech". Freedom of speech doesn't mean someone can say anything they want!

By the way, I was a Fidonet hub that brought in some BBs from Canada and redistributed them to the States. Yes, those were the bad old days, systems with 2400 baud modems, dialing out at 3AM to pick up the packets for the day. No graphics, just text and a Control G now and then for sound.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: red on October 17, 2011, 14:39

I remember the days prior to the internet, a werid thing called "BBS" where forums did exist but took 24 hours to sync the messages between them...
 

Sure, I used BBSs too.  They were cool.  The slowness of message transfers made for a different sort of exchange.

you young puppies. I remember this thing called the post office where you would write messages on actual paper and stick them in a box and a few days later they would be delivered to someone else. It was so much clearer than smoke signals.

It is a bit amazing to think I've been using e-mail for 25 years.

I do wish there was some way to encourage civility without having to remove anonymity though. Not that there aren't plenty of people without anonymity who are uncivil. (maybe I am being too negative in that sentence?)

Nope you are correct. But at least some grumpy old man, we know who it is, not some multiple account little troll sitting in the basement grinning as he disrupts the forums while he's downing his six pack and a pizza.  :D Anonynimity just open the door and encourages some people, the rest it wouldn't matter if they were their full name or a random number. It's the person behind the messages and some people just go that way. I suppose I'm wrong when I think that requirig real names or account connections to an agency, would change anything?

There is a confirmed Alamy account forum on Yahoo. Very funny, it's almost all the same messages and people that are on the Alamy forums (or used to be) I gave up reading there, because it was a duplication. And the Alamy forums you can make up a pseudo and post messages, hardly any difference. Well one, Alamy forums are moderated and they have a tight leash on trouble makers.

That may be the other option. Which of course will bring screams of "Free Speech". Freedom of speech doesn't mean someone can say anything they want!

By the way, I was a Fidonet hub that brought in some BBs from Canada and redistributed them to the States. Yes, those were the bad old days, systems with 2400 baud modems, dialing out at 3AM to pick up the packets for the day. No graphics, just text and a Control G now and then for sound.

After reading these latest posts I think the real need here is to verify if a user is over "a certain age" in order to be allowed to post (or to even see through the viewfinder of the camera, thank goodness for lcd screens). Or maybe not to post. We should have an old-timers section and a young bucks section. I wonder who would offer the most valuable info? - from a fellow seasoned photographer
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: cthoman on October 17, 2011, 14:42
you young puppies. I remember this thing called the post office where you would write messages on actual paper and stick them in a box and a few days later they would be delivered to someone else. It was so much clearer than smoke signals.


Was that back when there were dinosaurs and stuff?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmhjrrNl5Rs&feature=related[/youtube]
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: rubyroo on October 17, 2011, 14:54
I do wish there was some way to encourage civility without having to remove anonymity though.

Hear hear!

This feels like a case of 'one bad apple' (or a few) spoiling the whole bunch. 
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gbalex on October 17, 2011, 15:01
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.


So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Come on this isn't National Security, people who claim they are afraid of agency retaliation I understand, an anonymous section for posts like that, might be an option. But then we get stalkers and hackers and things that can happen anywhere, including FB and Twitter and anywhere else.

What makes keeping an ID secret and not letting anyone know what your sellers name so important. If it's only about writing nasty messages about some agency, that's kind of weak. I mean, does every anonymous person here have some kind of cause and string of critical messages about agencies, that would cause them to be banned or punished? I don't think so. I enjoy the small number of people who think someone will steal their ideas. Kind of like taking a photo of you will steal your soul. I don't think anyone does anything so unique and special that it's at risk. We can see what sell, we can see best sellers, we can see top keywords, there are no Microstock Secrets.

So what's a real reason?

I'm with Rimglow, for some reason the anonymous people tend to be the trolls and rude, they hide behind their pseudo accounts. People who have a name or email connection, even if it's not real, something like a sellers name is fine. Known people tend to be a little calmer and know that their reputation is associated with their real identity. The anonymous factor just invites abuse.

No I don't think people need to send in drivers license or passports that's a bit over the top. Just that they have an email account or are actually identifiable Microstock sellers account with an agency.

I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered. Those of us who have been around the internet for years and have worked on sites tend to limit our exposure by not sharing information online that could be used in any number of ways by any number of people.

A few years ago I would have felt more comfortable sharing more info, these days sites have more and more people outside the industry visiting and you see more and more site hacking's. In fact I know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.

In my opinion demonizing, labeling or blaming anonymous msg participants for these problems is off base, advertising practices like pulling in members by sponsoring sites and banner advertising brings more site traffic, but it also brings trolls, gurus looking to make a buck off inexperienced new members and hackers.

Site Sponsors
http://www.tutorvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/ (http://www.tutorvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/)  
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 15:58
I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered.


I agree.


know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.
orvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/[/url]  


Hacking isn't necessary; you can just sue the operator of the forum. And if the forum operator openly declares that he records the identities of the posters - well that just makes it so much easier.

Here's what the American Bar Association says:

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html (http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html)

All you have to do to invite a lawsuit is post something that damages someone else's "reputation or good name".
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: madelaide on October 17, 2011, 17:44
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious. :)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 17, 2011, 17:47
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious. :)

I agree...there is no end to what ifs...so at some point Tyler should just make a decision. it may not be the majority, but there is certainly a very close count on yay vs. nay...
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: gbalex on October 17, 2011, 17:48
I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered.


I agree.


know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.
orvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/[/url]  


Hacking isn't necessary; you can just sue the operator of the forum. And if the forum operator openly declares that he records the identities of the posters - well that just makes it so much easier.

Here's what the American Bar Association says:

[url]http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html[/url] ([url]http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html[/url])

All you have to do to invite a lawsuit is post something that damages someone else's "reputation or good name".


As far as hacking goes I was thinking more in line with the use of email info and passwords etc.  But yes you see more and more sites protecting themselves per your link and conversely you see more and more ISP's and large business sites which have been hit with legal actions against them for disseminating or even hosting deceptive advertising statements which are considered false advertising in violation of sections 17200 and 17500 of the Business & Professions Codes.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Snufkin on October 17, 2011, 18:32
I think MSG functions very well as it is now. Why fix something that ain't broken?

I can think of at least 2 individuals whose identities were known to everybody and yet they got kicked out for crossing the line.
1. Shankster the gangster
2. Do you remember the guy called "Contact" a.k.a. "Editorial"? He was here when I joined MSG in 2008. He was "pretty good" too and got banned.

On the other hand there are numerous people who prefer not to reveal their identity but whose input is very valuable.
The most visible effect of requiring confirmed identities would be a reduced member base.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: ProArtwork on October 17, 2011, 18:53
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.
So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?
Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious. :)


How many nays are anonymous and does it really count? Does anonymous have a right if they are anonymous? The last question is really a rhetorical one and no need for an answer.  ;D
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: RacePhoto on October 18, 2011, 00:15
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious. :)

Yes I agree and I should just STFU, I've had my say, I'm not anonymous, and some people are, which in the end, everyone has already voted by their account. :D

Some people have made good points and in the end, it's the person not the type of account. It won't ruin the site and won't make it much better. The paranoid people can come up with all the extreme hypothetical answers, but there are thousands of forums that require real people and some even charge a subscription. It has not chased the users away or brought them lawsuits. In fact some people are attracted to a site that demands real people.

What might ruin a site is someone posting some libel. Any written communication can be libelous as long as it's transmitted to a third party. Any of the agencies who feel they have been libeled by an untruth could bring charges and Leaf would be required by law to disclose who the real person is. So there's no protection by being anonymous from legal issues. For the people who seem to be in the majority saying they are most afraid of retribution from the agencies, maybe you should consider that you are not anonymous and the forum by law must disclose records and account information. I was handed a subpena by the FBI when I ran a BBS. Not that I wouldn't have given them the information, it was someone selling stolen computers from home invasions.

Like I said, I need to drop it. No harm here the site is just fine the way it is.
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: rubyroo on October 21, 2011, 00:15
This news article may be of interest on the subject of anonymity.  Hopefully, once all voices are considered,  a sensible compromise is reached that allows anonymity but discourages aggressive trolls and trouble-makers.  That's really all that's required, no?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15364774 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15364774)
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: lisafx on October 21, 2011, 16:33
The bill proposed in that article certainly would have a chilling effect on internet discourse.  If website owners are considered responsible for anonymous postings on their forums, then it will make moderating a really tough job.  Anything remotely critical or potentially controversial will have to be removed right away. 

I bet you'd see forums disappearing all over the place.  Not worth the hassle or liability to operate one.   :o
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: SNP on October 21, 2011, 18:41
^ I agree - I think that bill takes things to an absurd level of control...there's a happy medium somewhere
Title: Re: Should MSG require confirmed identities?
Post by: Mantis on October 21, 2011, 18:42
Kill Bill, volume IV.