Should we be more polite on this forum?

I've always viewed photo.net as Philip's house. He leaves the door open, and we wander in. Some are rude. Some are polite. Some are witty. Some are bores. If we don't like it, we can leave. If we don't like the questions, we can ignore them. If we don't like an answer, we can ignore it. No one forces us to participate.

Photo.net is an interesting concept, and I've wondered just how many Harvard Graduate Students who are working in Sociology are doing their research by watching our interactions :-).

Phil, don't apologize. photo.net is your baby, and I don't see any reason for you to try to change your style of response. photo.net wouldn't be as interesting as it is if you did.

Part of the problem is that not everyone here agrees with everyone else. This is to be expected. Hell, if everyone on photo.net agreed with everyone else, there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

For example, if it weren't for your strong bias against consumer-grade lenses, I'd never have been motivated to write reviews of the Canon 28-105 and 70-210 lenses, which are consumer-grade but I like nonetheless. Bravo to you for publishing them here.

I also think it's entertaining when Glen Johnson and Bob Atkins get into arguments over lens testing philosophies.

Bottom line: we are all individuals, with individual personalities and corresponding posting styles. Those who don't like it don't have to participate in photo.net. Those who don't mind it will learn a lot and hopefully contribute something to the effort.

Sam, if "that guy who works for Silicon Graphics" annoys you, don't read his responses, or simply ignore them. I think he has given some good advice here despite his sometimes blunt posting style. He's one of the few people here willing to take the time to put a proper html link in a response when appropriate, and I appreciate it even if I don't always agree with him. Live and let live.

I had noticed the decline in polite responses over the past few months that Phillip is referring to. I think there is room for more tolerance at Photo.net. The only stupid question is the one that is not asked.

Politeness and repect are necessary here, but not at the expense of personality, even a boorish one. If a post answers my question and/or entertains me, it doesn't much matter if the author is an "uptight, snobbish, showoff", I'll still appreciate it. There is too much good information and expert advice here to dismiss because of a few irrelavent or self-indulgent posts. (How much are we paying for this service?)

As for Philip, he definitely gets a politeness exemption for choosing to deal with all of this. This past November I stumbled upon his review of the Canon 70-200L (before finding photo.net and Q&A). I mailed him implying that he might be exaggerating the one meter drop that he descibes that lens taking. I then asked about the image quality of the 70-200L with TC's. Despite my near slander and painfully redundant question, I received an immediate and respectful reply. That exchange exemplifies my overall experience with photo.net.

photo.net is, if not the best, one of the best photographic information sites on the internet. It is so resourceful that it will fit everyone's need, from amateurs to professionals. Since I found this site, I have been spending at least 45 mins. on it everyday for the past three weeks. And I got my answer everytime.

I was just agitated by some particular answers when I posed the above comment. After Philip's and other people's input, I am sure this site will get better and better.

To clarify my previous post, my overall experience has not consisted of me making slanderous and redundant posts, yet still getting timely and useful responses -- although I'm sure that's happened :-) . My overall experience here is that contributors are knowledgeable, helpful, and generally pleasant, regardless of circumstances.

I agree with Phillip that courtesy and manners are appropriate. Even if we disagree, we can do so with politeness.

I think Photo.Net is awesome. It's the best example of a thriving net community on a web-site I can think of. Questions get answered, people discuss ideas in reasonably intelligent ways (even when I ask somewhat provocative questions), and the advice seems sound (to a guy who's just entering the hobby).

Thanks for putting in the work. I run an internet mailing list, and I must say that I haven't built anything near as successful as what Philip has built!

Probably. But at times what is not meant to be rude, snobbish or a know it all answer does sound that way. Unfortunately some of us, with me probably #1 here, tend to sound that way too often. I've taught a lot & tend to try to cut through the fluff immediately & get to what I think is most important. I am also biased towards results & believe too many photogs don't trust their own instincts. Then there are those who have never seen a really GOOD print in anything other than a magazine a well as those who want all the answers without any of the work that goes into getting them. So, yes, I sound rude at times & so do some others. But I hope I have answered a few questions positively. I sure try to & have gone back a few times to e-mail the individual after a re-read tells me I sounded like an ass.

I love this site! So some of our personalities clash sometimes, it's OK. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" should be kept in mind as we type our answers. Personally I prefer not to upset myself by posting an answer that is too cute (guilty on occasion)...and then I have to live with looking it for a long time.

Oh, probably. If your having a bad hair day, wait until the next day to reply, OK?

More polite? You may loose your status as the Howard Stern of Net photography. Anyway, you folks should be thankful for all those Dickless Yuppies for supplying you with mint used gear, after they find out how much work it is to lug and use all that stuff. Not only that, but I get such a warm fuzzy when I take a great shot with my consumer grade dreck.

This is a question & answer forum in which freedom of speech is respected, and ignorance is tolerated. And this is just the way it should be. If freedom of speech was not tolerated, the forum would start to derive into a boring, propagandistic, tendentious site and obviously the whole interest in it would be lost (nobody forces nobody to look at it!). If ignorance was not tolerated, there would be no questions to ask. There should not be such notion like an universally-accepted interesting or intelligent or stupid question. Otherwise, freedom of speech would not be respected, even if it is about a DY or any other social being, including uptights, snobbishes, showoffs or absolute beginners. Respecting each other is the best way to keep this forum sane, even though some of us can have a hard style or be in a bad mood sometimes.

I've been enjoying this wonderful resource for the last couple of months, but have noticed the "uptight, snobbish, show-off answers". I think that many of us need to watch our attitude and lighten up regarding the "dumb" questions. There seem to be two categories of questions in particular that fire people up; one is "I just bought a Nikon/Canon/etc and should I get the Sigma/Tamrom/etc 28-200 zoom?". The other is "I just bought a $5,000 Nikon system and don't understand why my pictures are [fill in problem]".

The first group are people generally new to photography, wanting to learn more, often on a budget. Rather than quashing their enthusiasm with a droll remark about "cheap" lenses, let's encourage them. Be honest, most of us started with some cheap or substandard equipment. And as we learned and grew in photography we moved up. Few beginners are going to blow up pictures to 16x20 and larger and notice that their Tamron isn't quite up to Nikon pro standards.

And maybe the second group does deserve the dickless yuppie title, but perhaps if we give them encouragement instead they'll grow out of it. I suppose there's a third group -- people who ask "is Nikon or Canon (or Minolta or Leica.....) best?" We should even be nice to them and encourage their interest in photography -- maybe a gentle comment regarding the importance of the photographer's mind rather than his/her equipment. Although it is very hard to be nice to someone who thinks that photography is a matter of equipment rather than vision...

This is more than just "being nice people" -- this is enlightened self-interest. How much effort will Nikon/Canon etc put into high-quality equipment if snobs like us drive all the potential 35mm users into point-and-shoots and APS? Tried buying a pro interchangeable lens Olympus lately? They're going for the profit in the mass market -- never forget, the management at Nikon/Canon/etc are there to MAKE MONEY FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS. If the population using serious cameras gets too small, they'll follow Olympus. It is in our own best interest, if we want continued development of serious photographic equipment, to encourage even the most blatant d.y.'s out there.

So the next time someone asks about the Sigma 28-200 for his N90, or writes "I can never remember if f4 is bigger or smaller than f8?", can we swallow that sarcastic response and give them some encouragement and gentle pointers?

[Although I do agree with Phillip's response to the AOL user re: Nikon 35Ti. Sometimes they *do* deserve some attitude.]

Here's a suggestion: If someone asks a stupid question(like something answered quite decisively elsewhere on photo.net), don't answer it. Maybe they'll get the hint. It's not like driving where someone else's idiocy has a direct effect on your well being. I live in Massachusetts so I get plenty of chance to be rude while driving. Here I like to relax a little.

Philip, weren't you an AOL acheiver at one point:>? (Great site BTW)

I agree with Matt. Every once in a while someone posts a question that deserves a little attitude.But, for the most part people, the people who post questions here just want to be pointed in the right direction without being crushed.I don't think that's too much to ask.

Like so many otheres, I stumbled on this site several months ago, at first i thought it was a kind of information exchange between pro photographers only, but after a while I have worked out exactly where every is at, but that does not make it any less interesting, on the contrary. I enjoy putting a bit of information in where i believe it may HELP, as I may have pointed out elsewhere, I'm a consultant to the professional photographic industry here in Australia, I've been at photography since 1960 and, I have a few tickets here and there including color digital prepress and I write for a pro magazine...But I'm not here to beat my drum. The point I want to make is the there are a lot of people submitting answers here who express OPINIONS wher objective responses are required, and yes some of them seem a bit rude I must admit, but behind them isa desire to assist. One thing I never do is express opinions in this forum, I deal only in facts, like the guy who wants to carry his camera in the glove box of his car, we all KNOW he should not, but having had a look at this a long time ago, I gave him the figures...it's up to him what he does about them, but I doubt if this is snobbish. You're all about 10,000 miles from me and it's good to talk to you..but I'd ask respondents to be careful regarding opinions, as someone said.....PEACE...Bob

No, Bob, I didn't find your answer at all snobbish. Frankly, it was a model answer -- "Just the facts, m'am." Your tone made your feelings on the topic clear, but without any belittling attitude.

Oh Philip, you troller! _smile_

Great site. Those who use the internet must realize that the whole reason its great (except for the real ones that actually help me and other researchers get work/collaboration done easily) is that its unbridled. One must have a little skin on their bodies if they also want to explore the networked world where its extremely easy for people to say something through a keyboard that the same person would never utter from their lips. At the same time, a little tolerance and longer flame fuses are nice too.

Thanks for maintaining this site!

Is this forum getting rude? I think not. About a week ago I posted a plea for help concerning a number of lousy images I foolishly had printed. In retrospect, it was probably a rather silly message since it was obvious that I got careless and screwed up. I should have titled it "Unsharp images from idiot, DY photographer" rather than "unsharp images from 80-200 Nikkor". I could have recieved a lot of well deserved critisizm for being so careless and foolish with such expensive and fine equipment. Instead I got a lot of nice advice and gentle reassurances. Several people, in private e-mail messages, zeroed in on the true problem and gave me advice. I appreciate all of it. I am back out shooting, taking more time to be careful, experimenting with faster print films, and enjoying it even more. When one looks at the big picture (pun intended) this group is great. I wish I could personally meet many of you.

We should separate "rude" from "blunt." Bob Hawley gave a blunt response to a question of mine. I misinterpreted it as "rude" and was rude in return, totally uncalled for. Blunt keeps the verbiage and bandwidth down, rude is just annoying.

i think Obi hit on what i was thinking for a day about this question. the difference between "rude" and "blunt". maybe it's because i'm a programmer and see too much C code all say, but i like blunt answers as much as verbose ones. i've seen very few rude answers in my months of participating in this forum. but i do see lots of blunt ones. most of the blunt answers are correct and to the point. there's nothing wrong with that. especially when the answer refers someone to informaiton that can be found elsewhere on the net or this site. (though not ALL questions about filters and labs are answered in photo.net's articles on these subjects, and not ALL photography problems are solved by the 70-200 2.8L)

now that i've been here a while i actually look at the author of the answer before i read it. not that i would think of ignoring any answers, but it gives me perspective to know who wrote the answer before i read it. i've e-mailed several photo.net regulars off-line to clarify blunt responses on their part and have always gotten answers to the questions i've had. this forum has helped me become a much better photographer, and i'll gladly suffer many blunt posts and a few rude ones for that.

P.S. i'm glad i do all my e-mailing from my work e-mail. my home one is an AOL account (which i've had since before the web was born) and i'm affraid i wouldn't have gotten answers if people knew of my shady AOL past.

Photo.net gives beginners access to pros and serious amateurs with a wealth of real-world knowledge that cannot be matched anywhere. Questions are answered almost immediately for free by people who are in no way obligated to do so all for the love of the hobby. I have learned more about photography from Phil and the other contributors to this site than any dead tree! Answers to equipment specific questions are the most useful because they are impossible to find in generic photo books. As a result of this net I have: 1.) Started to avoid those "leetel teeny buttons" and stick to manual exposure mode to understand why my shots turn out the way they do. 2.) Learned that on camara flash is almost useless and why (try and find that out in an advertising brochure). 3.) Managed to get some priceless shots of a newborn baby without diminishing the experience. 4.) Bought a 28-105 USM and a flash unit and am contemplating some primes (when I look down I belive I'm starting to see some growth, another $1000 of equipment and I'll be able have another child!). 5.) Learned that a T4 is cheap, takes good pictures and is manly! 6.) Learned that the wrong question will get you banished to the dreaded "Uninteresting Threads" page to be forever crucified in cyberspace (hasn't happened yet to me, thank God);-) And much more. Answers to what seem like silly questions are hard for beginners to find. Many of us purchase D.Y. outfits without being armed with objective information that would have otherwise altered our purchases. Advertising brochures, salespeople and photo magazines are the only source of information for many who don't know about this site. I'm sure I'm not the first to wish I had known about this site before yanking out the credit card. I'll take any and all opinons however biased or blunt from anyone frequenting this site. If I get burned I'll just pick myself up, brush myself off and go out and take some...not-quite-as-horrible slides!

I used to think Phil was just a nasty, mean old SOB. Now I know better. He's really a nasty, mean, TIRED old SOB!

But we do agree on one thing, AOL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Mr. Sgi' no doubt sucks greatly. But otherwise I think we should thank the very dick-conscious mr. Greenspun for an excellent site.

kudos to phil and photonet. excellent job and much work spent keeping this site going strong and progressive. if you want to see a real bunch of dickheads, try the canon forum. i don,t know how bob atkins stands it but he really does a good job with that too despite some especially intolerable people there. there is a difference between belittling and insulting equipment and just poking fun or giving one,s own opinion of it and the discerning photographers know the difference.

jeff hallett FL

This is a riot. A few weeks ago, being new to this forum but finding it increasingly interesting, I asked an honest and pretty standard question about choice of models and prices in the Caribbean. What I got from Phillip was a sarcastic answer which includes being called a name that has caught on with the flock, although it has no discernable meaning. I was polite. I followed with another honest question which was dumped. All I could think about was what a weird guy this Phillip is.

I think the answer is so obvious! "We should". I also believe the intention of this site (correct me if I'm wrong) is to share, exchange the information, and to learn if we don't know. There are unwritten rules when you are on the air, aren't there? Unfortunately, sigh..., life is not perfect! That makes life more interesting!!!!

Every once in a while, I forget about how nice photo.net participants are (or aren't) to each other, turn off my computer, grab my camera, and actually take some pictures.

The problem (if there is one) comes from the same source as it does on the rec.photo groups. When you see a question asked and answered over and over again it gets increasingly difficult not to say "Can't you read? We've been over that time and time again", though perhaps not in those exact words (hence D**kless Yuppie and similar references).

It's a problem with any (largely) unmoderated forum. As traffic increases and repetition rates go up, regular readers sometimes tend to become "impolite" or give up participating, having heard it all before.

Personally I like the impolite answers. New and creative ways of answering the same old questions might be the only way to keep the forum lively!

Manners are always nice, but free speech has its place, as well. A little class is also good. Read everything. That which offends you may still teach you. Ignore the emotional pain and seek the benefits of being well read.

Being boring and being rude are (thankfully) two different things. Nobody has ever been rude to me, no matter how stupid the questions (and many are, but if they werent they wouldnt need asking), or, how boring the answers (very restrained of people). The result is a forum that I think works really well. Different people, from different corners of the world, with different levels of experience and expertise  but also, with a cast of people that lend the thing a kind of stability that is missing from all the news groups, which seem random, anonymous babblings in the ether by comparison. The only way people will be motivated to contribute is if they are not intimidated  and the thing that keeps people coming back is that gradually you come to "know" some of the voices encountered here. On a small note, I hope Glen E Johnson in particular is keeping a record of all his contributions  there must be a book in it by now. Compare the expertise here with what you get in the magazines, and I think it is worth Sam Laus while to perservere through the things he doesnt like about it. And as for attitude  well, yes, just so long as it's smarter than just repeating Philips "dickless yuppie" tag. After all, what other type of yuppie is there (errrr, a woman, for a start)

Well, I guess I've figured out that a question about questions will get more response than anything else on this forum! Anyway, it looks like my secret agenda has worked! We've been seeing some more patient answers.

Personally I don't mind people being rude on sites like this one - if they get rid of some of their lingering annoyance from the bad day they're having then I suppose it serves some purpose.<br> <br> Personally I try to be reasonably polite when answering questions, but I do have a slightly dark sense of humour which does get misunderstood at times (sorry Philip....). I think it's part of being Scottish - I prefer people to insult me rather than compliment me - I get embarrased to easily. I also don't mind answering dumb beginner questions when I can (I'm not that far off a dumb beginner myself).<br> <br> Mind you this place is an awful lot better than the Photoforum mailing list - God forbid that some of the posters from there ever find this place!

Bart: I think if you read Philip's posting at the start of "Ask A Question" you will be relieved to know that most of us care about our answers. I think this site is a reflection of life. You have entered a world of photographers, whatever level they are, and you will sometimes get lively answers based on their personalities and experience. We need all kinds of questions. Some of the stuff that I think won't last a day, stays on forever. Only P.G. knows. Keep posting, and who knows, you might get an answer that will help you along in your photography pursuits.

If "beginners" took the time to READ the previous questions and answers and also to the time to READ the articles posted on photo.net (and the links therein), there would be far fewer "dumb" questions and corresponding "impolite" answers.

If questioners can't be bothered to take the trouble to do at least a little work on their own before asking a question, then I think the "experts" have a right to get snotty!

Politeness seems to be going the way of the dinosaur. Too bad. Neverless, I find this site fascinating. Lot's of serious folks providing serious, thoughtful answers. As for the boorish louts who seem to enjoy putting others down, I'll warrant that many of them have felt a need to join Mensa to prove their intellectual prowess! That's their problem. Thanks, Phil for a great site!

I'm with you 100%, Jack (I've been watching this politeness thread for awhile but wasn't sure what to add until rereading it this morning). My only complaint about photo.net has nothing to do with Phil; it's simply that I don't think the self-ordained experts DO have a "right" to be snotty, as the post before Jack's suggested; I say, "not as long as they're fallible" (and last time I checked, most humans are). Photography is inexhaustible--Eisenstaedt was probably still learning in his 90s--and these photo.net "experts" probably are proficient at a couple of aspects of photography, and, I venture to say, far less than knowledgeable in others. We are all on different rungs on a range of photographic ladders, and at one point every single one of us was on the ground at the foot of each one. With every answer, we can choose to give a hand to those behind us on the ladder, or we can step on their fingers. . . .

Experts on photo.net, remember that many newcomers to this forum are also new to the Internet! I certainly was a few weeks ago when I jumped in through this particular entrypoint (I even endured Philg's barbs about AOL, explaining to him that my company chose it for me as I needed toll-free e-mail access when I travel to photograph in remote areas; if that makes me a "dickless yuppie," I'll have to accept it in return for the phone bill savings!). In other words, if they aren't used to poking around and using links and Search, newcomers may not have found the reference to their query that was posted back in April under a completely unrelated topic. How the "experts" on photo.net respond to these queries usually says an awful lot about the expert. If the expert is ("rightfully") snotty, uses inside references to people in the industry as shorthand perjoratives, and intimidates the newcomer into shutting up until he has several thousand dollars to bring to the table, well, he's no expert at expressing basic kindness and consideration. If, on the other hand, a "naive" or "foolish" question gets a simple one-line response like "Why not check out [link] or [book]; this is dealt with fairly extensively there," the expert is displaying both his knowledge and his thoughtfulness. The questioner gets the info he wanted, and the forum can move merrily along to the next topic.

Nothing brings out the snottiness like equipment questions. Yes, prime lenses are better than 18-400 f6.7 zooms (and don't forget to periodically explain to newcomers what "prime" means, and why single-focal length lenses tend to be sharper than 18-element zooms), but thinking back to my own beginnings, when a $60 Slik U212 tripod was a dream come true, answers like that would have been completely irrelevant to me; talk of 300/2.8's only fostered an unproductive lens envy that takes years to get past. I thought of this last weekend when shooting my church's annual picnic with my 28-200 lens (horrors!) and 400-speed print film (more horrors!), ideal tools for the task (I was running between group portraits, face painting, crowd shots, water balloon tosses, and closeups at booths). Yes, I could have used any number of single focal length lenses, or shorter-span, faster zooms, but it was bright overcast and I didn't want to bring more than one camera or one lens (the pictures, from all responses, seem to have worked out great; none will ever be enlarged to more than 5x7, and everyone's delighted with their clarity).

All I'm saying is that sometimes the experts' answers address the question. . . . but when the answers are snotty all they reveal is the expert's own insecurities. Enough on that.

By the way, I like the way that threads like this periodically get revived and rediscussed. I often wonder when I check an old thread that hasn't been updated since last winter whether it fully ran its course or whether it merely got cycled out of view. Would it be worth considering a "Hot topics revisited" area, or do people check the "New answers" section enough to make that unnecessary? Just a thought. . . .

Have a great weekend of shooting, everyone!

in regards to "(and don't forget to periodically explain to newcomers what "prime" means, and why single-focal length lenses tend to be sharper than 18-element zooms)" from the above post...

i think this idea goes to the heart of what the "implolite" people here are complaining about. they don't want to "preiodically" explain these things because the points are covered VERY well in all the static photo.net articles. and for those who don't read those (what a shame) they are covered VERY well in all the old questions.

i never talk down to people here but i've taken to answering questions with a simple "go to search, look up "sigma 18-1800", look for the question titled "why zooms are bad", and you'll find your answer there" i guess that may be imploite (or at least curt) but it seems a little implolite to re-ask those questions to me too...

Yes,

This is one good party here.

As a host, Phil, you are great.

If one happens not to like someone in a big party such as this, what should one do? Either leave or find another one to talk to.

If one does not like a topic in a subgroup (called a thread here), one looks for another topic discussed by some one else.

I am a new comer, I wish there are hundreds more to join here. How many cameras are being sold a month around the world? There should be way more forum participants in photo.net than now!

I wish you can set up a photo contest or exhibition here, in cyberspace, so we can see people's work as well as read what they say.

Thanks.

I don't know, I occasionally find people on here a tad crass and overly critical/sensitive. (not towards me, but from one person to another). I see "what an ugly picture (usually just needs some basic corrections in coloring/appearance/crop...or the person is rude), ugly model (God forbid she's over 35 without implants! no offense to older people, I'm just noticing a general trend to which I find offensive), racist (for alerting someone to the physical appearance of a nasty photo store worker)," ETC.

But on the other hand, that is life in general. I usually suppress the urge to throw fluffy large objects (just to get a point across, not to hurt people, hehehe) at people in "real life" but to save my sanity I don't. I guess the best thing to do is ignore it and not stoop to lower levels.