As I recall, several months ago users of this forum were asked if this site should join photo.net, where there was already a general photography forum, a medium-format forum, and a nature photography forum (other fora have since been added). Neither the archives of this LF site nor its features nor its look would be changed; it would simply be indexed for, and made accessible to, a much larger audience (photo.net is, I believe, the most-visited site on the web, so such a move would certainly increase the visibility of this site). Granted, "our" site is accessible through Phil Greenspun's bboard, but almost no visitors to photo.net seem to go there to look.
The users of this site rejected joining forces with photo.net, for what struck me as embarrassingly elitist and exclusivist reasons (those who disagree with this harsh assessment are welcome to berate me... but calm down and help me, please, by telling me in a non-elitist way why you still don't think this forum should be part of photo.net).
Anyway, I've noticed more and more LF questions popping up on photo.net; since yesterday noon, 4 of the 11 questions in the photo.net archived forum have been expressly about LF. Sometimes the posters over there are steered to this LF page (often by me), sometimes not. I noticed that even the sponsor of this forum, QTLuong (to whom endless thanks are due for a most excellent site; my hat's off to you for a job well done), is among the respondents to LF questions posted over on photo.net.
I guess my question is whether it's more fruitful to post LF questions over at photo.net, where many of the LF regulars in this forum (i.e., you-all) participate as part of a MUCH larger overall readership, or over here, where the audience is much smaller but more focused on LF. The former option (photo.net) clearly has advantages in terms of reaching a wider audience (including especially non-U.S. LF users who don't know about this site) but then again every LF thread that lands over there is one less thread in the information base over he