Deleted View Camera Thread?

[Robert Hall]

This falls under the "what am I doing" file as I don't like to get mixed up in such threads.
However...

I like to see informational post about magazines, books, shows, openings, etc.

While I could go to web sites and search the news, I like to see it here in a somewhat localized place.

I like to see people get a pat on the back for doing well with their photography, be it . Many here work very hard to improve their art. I understand the pride they have in their work and I like to have information so that I may see it as well.

I've no idea what the post was on, but I've not seen Steve ask for people to sign up yet, but if he decided to run a special on subscriptions, I sure would like to hear about it here. (The same goes for any of the other photo rags we have out there.)

My 2¢. And thanks to all who post information on good photographic work.

[tim atherton]

[I]Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Peterson

Well lots of folks post announcements of their new websites by asking for opinions. Some sell photos and others don't, but it's still marketing. How about people announcing gallery openings or new books published?

they are allowed a one-off post

[George Stewart]

Of all the threads I've ever seen, I don't recall one that deserved to be removed - my opinion. That said, it is the owner/moderator's right, as I see it, to do as he or she sees fit. This is especially true if the forum/web site is privately owned. A public forum on the other hand should be open and without censorship - which means that those who post threads should be allowed extraordinary latitude in the threads that are posted. If a commercial posting might be of interest to a specific forum audience, why not allow it?

That said, I've had my threads and logins deleted from more web sites than one can shake a stick at - never here though. I've used my photographs of orbs in support of book sales. Perhaps my perceptions of the supernatural are too extreme for most

Perhaps I am crazy for shooting little digicams, as often as I do, in lieu of my 8x10. For those with interest, please check here http://www.georgedstewart.com/ORBS.html
No, those aren't dust spots.

[Charles Hohenstein]

I've long been a firm believer in the non-commercial nature of this forum. That said, I didn't see any sales pitch or offer to sell anything in Steve's post. All I saw was information about the topics covered in the upcoming issue of View Camera. If that's advertising, it's a pretty ill conceived marketing plan.

I agree totally.

[Marko]

The magazine owners have their own web sites and can advertise there. People who are subscribers to the publications can put forth a little effort and go look to see what's coming up on the next issue on those web sites, or just wait and see.

[...]

We do have a search function and if you look up "magazine" I'll bet both publications will show up in the archives more than once.

This is true, technically speaking. I'll try to remember it the next time somebody asks for help or an opinion about, say, their new website, or perhaps a monitor or some photo application and the like. There are so many resources about all those topic on the web, it would surely be redundant to ask here without putting any effort.

Of course, such atitutde would also likely kill a good part of the sense of community here, but that's beside the point, we're talking about rules here...

Also:

ad·ver·tis·ing
n.
1. The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business.

And of course, this could also include many user names here on this very board, since for many members their name is also the name of their business and that is commercial. Maybe we should ban those too?

[Struan Gray]

Owners and moderators have to draw a line somewhere. The line can be flexible to allow for, say, cutting a new kid on the block a little slack, but in the end I think one of the real strengths of this site is the lack of commercial pressure, and it would be a shame to lose that.

The downside is that you end up in the odd position that the only people not able to announce a new product are those that know most about it. In a perfect world that would be stupid, but this world is not perfect, and posts by those with something new to sell are not usually noted for their lack of bias.

QT gets my vote for treading a thin line carefully, and with tact. If MAGNAchrom has settled down to a regular publishing schedule, and looks like staying the course, perhaps it is time for Michael to show the same restraint as the big boys like Steve, Brooks Jensen and other publishers.

[Marko]

By and large, this board has proven to be the one with most reasonable moderation and as commercial-free as it is possible these days.

But I respectfully think that this latest intervention leaves a bit of a strange taste in the mouth because Steve and VC have been an accepted part of the general board landscape for as long as I've been reading the board.

I don't know Steve personally and I have no connection with either VC mag or any other, but what troubles me greatly is that throughout that time Steve's announcements of upcoming issues were tolerated and even more so were the subsequent criticisms. Even downright attacks that would more often turn personal and irrational then not, usually growing so vicious that many of those thread ended being locked. But never (or at least very rarely) deleted, that I can remember.

Now, when most of those attackers got banned or left of their own volition after proving equally uncivil and vicious toward each other and toward anybody who got caught in another of their pet flame topics, Steve's usual announcement gets deleted without explanation, along with all the other other posts within that thread.

It took a whole another thread to get a curt and terse excuse about the rules that, excuse me for being blunt, simply rings hollow and capricious. Yes, I do realize that it is the owner that gets to make (and break) the rules as he sees fit, but that doesn't make me think any better about this particular case.

I think that we, as a community, not to mention Steve in particular, have at least deserved a courtesy of an explanation note after the deletion. I also think that the sheer coldness of response to this thread does not contribute at all to the sense of community this board has built so far.

I would hate to see this trend continue developing, as it would surely make less people want to participate, ask or, especially, respond to questions. After all, as noted earlier, one can google an answer to almost any question on the net, but if it comes to that, what would be the end purpose of this board and why keep coming back? The fact that it is free and non-commercial won't suffice by itself.

[BrianShaw]

Well thought out and well stated, Marko... I totally agree!

[Bruce Watson]

Owners and moderators have to draw a line somewhere. The line can be flexible to allow for, say, cutting a new kid on the block a little slack, but in the end I think one of the real strengths of this site is the lack of commercial pressure, and it would be a shame to lose that.

The downside is that you end up in the odd position that the only people not able to announce a new product are those that know most about it. In a perfect world that would be stupid, but this world is not perfect, and posts by those with something new to sell are not usually noted for their lack of bias.

QT gets my vote for treading a thin line carefully, and with tact. If MAGNAchrom has settled down to a regular publishing schedule, and looks like staying the course, perhaps it is time for Michael to show the same restraint as the big boys like Steve, Brooks Jensen and other publishers.

Yes. Well said. I think QT has done an excellent job with this site in a number of ways. This is one of them.

[tim atherton]

whatever the rights and wrongs, it's not like Viewcamera doesn't get a least one thread about each new issue without Steve having to do anything...