Deleted View Camera Thread?

[Kirk Gittings]

Did I miss something the last couple of hours? I am curious about the reasoning behind the deletion of the recent View Camera thread.
It states:


Reason: Advertisement - Falls outside the LF Forum guidelines.

How were Steve's statements fundamentally different than the Magnachrome threads? They are both for profit enterprises informing customers about their products.

And before you say I am biased, (because of my long relationship with VC and Steve Simmons) know that I have suggested story articles to Michael for Magnachrome. These suggestions led to the article in this issue about Allen Rumme by Eric Biggerstaff, both dear friends of mine.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

I agree, what is the difference?

I like to see both be able to announce upcoming issues, seek input for articles and ask for submissions. Neither one posts subsciption prices or asks for people to subscribe.

Also, there are other threads that have been posted by companies, one that comes to mind is an announcement recently of a view camera adapter for a DSLR.

I don't think the deleted VC thread was any different than the current MAGNAchrom thread.

[roteague]

I agree with Kirk and Eric. There was no need to delete this thread, it should be reinstated.

FWIW, I don't know Steve Simmons, but frankly I'm tired of seeing the guy constantly hammered for petty reasons. The guy has been forthcoming, and is one of the biggest supporters of the LF community.

[Marko]

Maybe it was just an accident - the moderator could've seen the VC thread and thought "there we go again" and just hit the button without reading through?

:D

As I said in the post on that thread that got deleted: there's been much less VC bashing and venom on that topic since the latest round of banning/leaving. In fact, there's been much less incivility since then overall, including the Lounge.

[BrianShaw]

I agree with Mr. Teague.

[naturephoto1]

I didn't see anything wrong with the deleted post either. :confused: :(

Rich

[MJSfoto1956]

I agree with all the above. Steve's post was just "informative" providing a table of contents for the next issue of VC, of which I am a long-time subscriber (in fact, I own every single issue of VC, even the very first one).

And for what it's worth, there ain't no profit yet in MAGNAchrom! (maybe next year)

But I *DO* find it interesting that he almost always posts "something" within hours of any post I make! (yes you could have waited a few days Steve, and the forum would have been all yours)

Cheers,

[Eric Rose]

I agree with Kirk and Eric. There was no need to delete this thread, it should be reinstated.

FWIW, I don't know Steve Simmons, but frankly I'm tired of seeing the guy constantly hammered for petty reasons. The guy has been forthcoming, and is one of the biggest supporters of the LF community.

Ditto in spades.

[Jim Jirka]

Both are fine publications. I don't know why it was deleted either. Seemed very tame in content to me.

If someone other than Steve posted the information, per guidelines, it would have stayed. Only the owner or other party that has monetary gain is not allowed to post items.

Worded as such in the guidelines.

[alec4444]

I agree as well. If the post had a link to a page on the view camera site to "Order Now" that's an ad. Both this and Magnachrome posts were not ads.

And no, it wasn't an accident with the "Advertisement - Falls outside the LF Forum guidelines." reason attached to it.

I'm always interested in the TOC for magazines such as this and others and I think it's fine for the editors to provide us with the contents. The moderators seem to have no problems with us battering the magazines when we feel fit to do so.....so how is a little positive feedback a bad thing?

--A

[Allen Rumme]

Kirk,

I too agree. I saw Steve's post and it was no different than Michael's post about Magnachrom.

[Walter Calahan]

I have no problem with View Camera and Magnachrome both posting to this forum.

Either no magazine should post, or all magazines should post.

I'm not making the rules, but just want to see fairness.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael, I know for profit is not the same thing as profitable:). I'm sure you will get there and I wish you well.

But VC and MC are in the same business classification and should be treated the same. FI At this point, I am totally confused about the guidelines if your posts are ok and Steve's aren't. A clarification is in order at the very least.

[QT Luong]

The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site.

[Kirk Gittings]

Qt,


The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers.(for now.....)

I don't see how that is a consideration. They both are for profit organizations. Steve charges for subscriptions where Michael posts it for free to attract paid advertisers. The final objective is exactly the same.

I know that Michael and Steve have a great love of photography and do much in service to the community, but lets not be naive. Both publications are businesses whose goal is to be profitable.

[alec4444]

The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site.

Nah, sorry...if that is truly the case then it really needs to be applied evenly. People have been actually selling things here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23068

Back to the original thread, what if I posted the contents of the magazine to say that I thought "XYZ article sounds really stupid" or "I can't wait to see the article on ABC"? A mere discussion of what is in the magazine is very different than "Come <link>HERE</link> and buy my magazine." (Again, see the calendar thread)

--A

[MJSfoto1956]

I have no problem with View Camera and Magnachrome both posting to this forum

My needs are simple: I only ask that people spell MAGNAchrom correctly!!! ;)

[QT Luong]

Pretty much everything that is published on the web is connected in some way to a for-profit venture. This forum doesn't exist in a vacum and allows references or links to such material, *as long as the material is accessible for free to the reader*. This is already spelled out in the guidelines.

[alec4444]

Pretty much everything that is published on the web is connected in some way to a for-profit venture. This forum doesn't exist in a vacum and allows references or links to such material, *as long as the material is accessible for free to the reader*. This is already spelled out in the guidelines.

QT, I don't disagree with the guideline, but I do respectfully disagree with the application of the guideline. I'll leave my opinion at that.

--A

[roteague]

I don't see why both can't be allowed. It isn't like they are selling life insurance. They are both supporting the LF community, and both provide a resource to the community. I assume that Emulsion would also fall under the same rules.

[windpointphoto]

What about people who market thier websites on which they sell prints?

[Kirk Gittings]

VC content is free if you go to the library or sit in a coffee shop and read it without buying it.:)

Really, if that is the guidelines they need to be updated, because in essence MC and VC are doing exactly the same thing but under a slightly different business model. One should not be denied informing the public about their current issue because of a slight difference in how they get paid for their product.

[John O'Connell]

"VC content is free if you go to the library or sit in a coffee shop and read it without buying it." -KG

Well, I support the distinction made in the application of the forum policy between content I can obtain for free and content I cannot obtain for free. Steve's magazine has not reached the sort of massive penetration where I can find it easily.

I've been thinking that the forum has mostly become a marketplace anyway, lately, and I find any voice for noncommerciality refreshing.

[QT Luong]

What about people who market thier websites on which they sell prints?

Not permitted.

However, if you write a wonderful and relevant article about some aspects of your photography, you can post a link to it, regardless on where it is hosted.

The signature link is also authorized, as a courtesy, in recognition of the value of your postings.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Disclaimer - I am a contributing editor for View Camera magazine. Please keep that in mind when reading my thoughts on this topic.

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. After all, some people may read the list of subjects and decide there is nothing that interests them in this particular issue and decide it's not worth the trip to their local bookstore to buy a copy. Putting the information out there merely lets people know what's in the magazine - not how or where to buy it. With no sales pitch, it's more of an FYI post than an ad or solicitation.

I know there are exceptions in the fourm guidelines for workshops and gallery shows/openings, but if you ask me those are much more commercial and ad-like than this announcement by Steve. I can't see those shows online for free, I can't take those workshops online for free. Yet, those postings are considered acceptable. Please go back and read through the posts in the "announcements" sub-forum over the last month and I think you'll find a couple dozen that are far more commercial - complete with prices - than Steve's post that got nuked by the moderator.

If the guidelines allow announcing workshops that cost hundreds of dollars to attend, but not an informational post about the contents of a book or magazine without any sales pitch, it is the guidelines that are broken. As they are written and applied today, they hardly seem consistant. The guidelines have been updated in the past to reflect the growth and changing needs of the community. Maybe it's time to consider a minor change that would allow such informational posts. If not, then maybe it's time to cease allowing workshop and galley announcements as those are surely for-profit ventures that are not available free online either.

Kerry

[Marko]

<rant>

Call me thick if you will, but I still do not understand how is this violating any rules? The way I see it, Steve is not advertising his magazine or any other services, he is simply announcing an upcoming issue of the magazine that so many of us have a keen interest in. That's why we have the Announcement section, after all, isn't it? And both Steve and others have done that freely in the recent past. Why this selective uptightness all of a sudden?

And what of all the other announcements about any product at all - aren't those all just marketing tools anyway under these guidelines? So, if they all happen to be verbotten, then why keep the Announcements section in the first place?

Unless there is something else going on behind the scenes that the general public such as us here is not aware of, but if so, and given the interest generated, it would be only fair toward all the members to clearly explain it.

</rant>

[Tom Westbrook]

I personally don't like the repetitive nature of either magazine's announcement posts. 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. I subscribe to both periodicals and don't see the need for issue announcements. I get an announcement via email from MagnaChrome and I think that's plenty.

It's good that we know that these resources are available, but single posts by their owners about their existence should be sufficient. If they are good, we'll hear about them in the course of general discussion. 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.

[Tom Westbrook]

Also:

ad&#183;ver&#183;tis&#183;ing
n.
1. The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business.

[windpointphoto]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Peterson
What about people who market their websites on which they sell prints?

Not permitted.

However, if you write a wonderful and relevant article about some aspects of your photography, you can post a link to it, regardless on where it is hosted.

The signature link is also authorized, as a courtesy, in recognition of the value of your postings

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?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

The definition of advertising would probably include all posts about items for sale, magazine publications, "what do you think of my website" postings, equipment reviews, workshop announcements, "How To" DVD announcements, etc, etc.

I am fine if we remove ALL of those things, but the rules should be applied fairly across all. As was mentioned in another post, there have been several far more commercial announcements recently and the VC thread that was removed was simply letting people know about the upcoming issue (very similiar to Michael's postings about MAGNAchrom). If Steve had posted, "Available at your local newstand for $6.95" or whatever, I think that is for sure wrong, but he did not do that.

[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&#162;. 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... :rolleyes:


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...

[Jim Noel]

I don't understands why Magnachrome is allowed to post, and View Camera is not.

[neil poulsen]

This is the guideline on which the decision to delete the thread in question was based:

>> Conferences, Workshops, Books and Gallery Openings - Announcements of conferences, LF-related trade shows, workshops, book releases and gallery openings may be posted to the Announcements sub-forum (one per event only, please).

In general, we definitely want to allow, in a non-repetitive way, announcements of educational events. View Camera is of course educational. Announcing the availability of a new periodical falls within this guideline. But, announcing individual issues of a periodical steps outside the non-repetitive portion of this guideline.

In deciding on this guideline, we've tried to draw a fair line between making information of interest to forum contributors available, yet limiting commercial advertising that could otherwise dilute the topics of interest, which relate to large format photography.

We've also tried to make exceptions for announcements of events, etc., that are free to contributors. But given how the guidelines are structured, we may want to review further whether periodicals that are free to contributors don't also fall under the above guideline.

The guidelines have been written to benefit people who have an interest in large format photography, given that the LF Forum is a non-profit, educational entity. Thanks for your input on this matter. It's through input like this that the guidelines have evolved over the years.

[Rick Moore]

This forum is one of the best anywhere, on any topic, and this is in very large part due to QT Luong's excellent leadership. The moderators he has chosen to help him also deserve credit.

Moderating a public Internet forum is one of the most thankless jobs on Earth. The moderators here really have done an outstanding job. Having been such a moderator of another forum in another world (FidoNet) many years ago, maybe I just have a little more sympathy than most to their position.

However, given the fine job QT and his helpers have done for so long, I feel we owe it to them to treat their actions with respect. No one agrees with the moderators 100% of the time. Do we really have to carry on like this every time the moderators take an action with which we disagree? Even if we feel we absolutely must speak out against their horrible injustice, do we really have to sink to the level of questioning their motives?

[Kirk Gittings]

View Camera is of course educational. Announcing the availability of a new periodical falls within this guideline. But, announcing individual issues of a periodical steps outside the non-repetitive portion of this guideline.

If this is really the policy then why can Magnachrom announce every single issue and list the content of every single issue? MC is clearly in violation of your stated interpretation of the guidelines. Why the double standard?


from Michaels current post for this issue as he has for every issue:



Dear List,

Volume 1, Issue 3 of MAGNAchrom has just been released. And it is the best issue ever. With over eight contributors from all walks of the photographic life, this special issue is dedicated to Black and White. At over 100 pages, it is also our largest to date. As a registered user, all you need do is login to download it as well as any of the previous issues. Be sure to let us know what you think!

You can download (for free) the new v1.3 issue here: www.magnachrom.com



MAGNAchrom v1.3 Contents

* SOAPBOX: The Contemplative Photograph
* HOT MODS: S.K. Grimes Builds the Whatsitcam
* 4-SQUARE: Oscar Reina
* PROJECT: Allen Rumme: Markings
* INTERVIEW: Don Kirby & Joan Gentry
* PORTFOLIO: Parallels: 16 Photographs
* CENTERFOLD: Bernhard Hartmann
* FEATURE: The Carbon Transfer Process
* VISION: B.A. Bosaiya: Angels and Insects
* REVIEW: Ebony SW23
* ROUNDUP: Four Focusing Hoods
* PARTING SHOT: The Foundry Foreman

__________________
J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Rick,

I think by and large this discussion has been very respectful to the moderators, and I agree they do an excellent job.

The point that is being made is that the rules should be applied fairly to all. In this case the VC post was almost exacly like the Magnachrom post but he VC post was removed while the MAGNAchrom post was allowed to stay.

So, we are just trying to determine why this occured and what the future application of the rule should be. In reading the thread, I don't see where any flame wars have started or any disrespectful insults / comments have been made.

I think everyone on this thread agrees with you that QT and the moderators deserve a great deal of thanks for the work they do.

[Michael Mutmansky]

I'm not an unbiased bystander as I have a relationship with View Camera, so take my impressions with that context.

I have to strongly agree with Kirk and the others here that what is essentially being done by the moderators is making a 'distinction without a difference'.

While the method of profitability of the two magazines may be different, make no mistake that the two magazines that are being discussed are operating within the same profit-based infrastructure that we call capitalism. It doesn't matter if one is profitable and the other not, and in my mind it doesn't even matter if it is a 'for profit' or 'not for profit' organization, because in the end, money is changing hands in the mix. This really applies to ANY organization that may post on here, including individuals with FS ads.

The only true exception to that might be a personal website that has absolutely no commercial nature, and the host or originator has no mechanism for making any profit through direct, secondary, or tertiary vehicles connected to photography.

In fact, in this particular example of the two magazines, the MAGNAchrom postings can be argued to be more commercial in nature than the View Camera postings, because I'm sure MAGNAchrom's current model for profitability is tied directly to the 'readership' numbers that are collected through registration and downloading of the magazine. ALL of the advertising that is the profit center of the magazine is available through the link and download provided in the posting.

The View Camera profit model probably does not hinge on people viewing materials on the website at all, and in particular since there are few external advertisements on the website, I suspect that the volume of downloads are not terribly important to advertisers in that magazine. It's the readership of the hard copy that control in their model primarily.

In other words, while the MAGNAchrom model directly ties the profitability to the volume of traffic that a link in his posting may provide, the View Camera model only indirectly may see profit related to volume of traffic through a link.

In other words, quit drawing irrelevant lines in the sand. Either make it acceptable for all, or for none, and be done with it.


---Michael

[roteague]

So, what is wrong with allowing some commercial postings, if they are a benefit to the LF community?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Rick,

I'm not questioning anyone's motives. I just want to understand why the "rule" does not seem to be applied universally and consistantly. I'm not blaming anyone for this. Perhaps, the "rule" is just too vague and ambiguous to allow the moderators to be fair and consistant. In that case, I think an open discussion about changing the "rule" is in order (by rule, I am referring to the forum guidelines covering announcements and commercial postings).

About a year ago, there was a change in the forum guidelines to allow announcements in the forum about upcoming workshops and conferences - even if those workshops and conferences charged fees. At the time, I argued in favor of this change. I think workshops and conferences help build our community. They attract and educate new users and help keep old users like me actively participating in the large format community. Anything that keeps our little niche market growing and vibrant benefits us all. So, the rules were ammended to allow these types of announcements since the benefit to the overall community was felt to outweigh the relatively minor amount of commercial promotion permitted.

Like these workshop and conference announcements, Steve's deleted post seemed to me to be just an FYI type announcement. There was no salesmanship. No urging anyone to buy his product - just here'e what it is, thought you might be interested. Just like the MagnaChrom announcements (which I don't have a problem with). As long as these announcements aren't excessive and overbearing, I don't see what the harm is in allowing them. Again, if the articles in these publications spur interest in large format photography and encourage people to try new things, we all benefit. In the end, ANYTHING that convinces people to shoot more sheet film helps keep us a viable market. As long as the announcements are posted in the proper "Announcements" sub-section, they are easily ignored by those who aren't interested.

Kerry

[GPS]

What about if Steve wrote it in the FS section? FS number X of VC... Content:
1. blah blah
2. blah blah
3. blah blah...
After all, he sells it. Would that save the cake while we eat it?

[Oren Grad]

Reading through this thread, I think the arguments about the difficulty of drawing distinctions re the commercial character of publications are persuasive. I would be very comfortable if the guidelines were amended to explicitly allow posting, in the Announcements section only, of the TOC for new issues of relevant periodicals or for newly-published books. The moderators would retain the right to decide whether a publication is relevant.

[Ted Harris]

Since I've got two horses in this race, one for View Camera and one for the Moderation Team I figured it was time for me to chime in.

By and large all the comments have been well thought out and very useful to us as we move forward to continue to revise and rethink both the guidelines and how they are interperted. There is no reason to close the thread but I do think we have all the info and, believe me, we have a lot to chew on and think about.

Thanks to all for their contributions.

[Kirk Gittings]

Darn, I was just getting started........................

It seems clear that most responders have no problem with these magazine postings, that they find them informative and not crass commerciallism. I would hope that they would be allowed to continue. Thank for the moderators' efforts on this. I'm sure you all have better things to do with your time.

[David Karp]

Reading through this thread, I think the arguments about the difficulty of drawing distinctions re the commercial character of publications are persuasive. I would be very comfortable if the guidelines were amended to explicitly allow posting, in the Announcements section only, of the TOC for new issues of relevant periodicals or for newly-published books. The moderators would retain the right to decide whether a publication is relevant.

Even after all these years, I just subscribed to VC Mag for the first time. I used to just check it out at Borders, and buy it if the issue was interesting. For a long time, there were lots of articles that just did not interest me. (Lately that is different, so I subscribed.) Posts like the Magnachrom and Steve's during all that time would have made it easier for me to decide if I wanted to drive to the bookstore. In other words, I think that for many of us, knowing the contents of an issue is valuable information when conveyed in an appropriate manner on this site.

Another point: From VC Mag's point of view, Magnachrom may be (probably is) considered a competitor. In the publishing business, there are readers and there are advertisers. Publishers compete for both. Regardless of whether a fee is charged for the magazine, advertisers supply income to both of the magazines we have been discussing here. Readership is key to advertising rates - The higher the rate of readership, the higher the potential rates that the publisher can charge.

There are a variety of business models available to people searching to make a profit. The model chosen does not define who competes with whom.

I think it would be a good idea to revamp the guidelines so that we are not unintentionally favoring one competitor over the other based on the business model they choose to pursue.

[Pete Watkins]

QT has my full support. Rules are rules are rules. The VC editorial team seem to have found a way around QT's ruling anyway, sad. I know nothing about Magnachrom but if it is available as a free item I cannot see the problem. VC is a commercial enterprise and I support QT's interpretation of the Forums guidelines.
Pete.

[Kirk Gittings]

VC is a commercial enterprise

And Magnachrom isn't??? What are you talking about?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

VC is a commercial enterprise...

So is MagnaCHROM and all the people announcing workshops, books, calendars, etc. in the Announcements section. Why is one commercial enterprise forbidden from sharing information and others are permitted to post announcements, including prices, about their products and services?

Kerry

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Pete,

You are correct, rules are rules and they should be fairly applied to all. There are many commercial and quasi-commercial postings on this site and it is a tough thing for the moderators to judge. Those of us who are familiar with both publications are just looking for equal treatment, both publications provide valuable information to the community and should be treated on an equal basis.

[Dave Parker]

As a commercial enterprise that posts on various topics here, I say, the only feeling is we are crossing into a very slippery slope, when it comes down to it, it is the owners right, his will and his choice to allow or disallow particular topics and really none of us have the right to second guess them, there are rules posted and there will be interpretations of those rules, 100 different people will interpret those rules 101 different ways, the owner made a choice and it is his right to make the choice he made..if we want to make it fair, then we need to see different rules, but when it comes down to it, it is in fact QT's choice to allow or dis-allow something, as well as the moderation team he picked..and another thing I will add, when it comes to personally owned chat systems, there is no fair or not fair, it is at the discretion of the owner who pays the bills!

Dave Parker
Satin Snow Ground Glass

PS. After last two months I have had, I do appreciate the ability to post here, thanks again to all that make this possible.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't disagree with anything you have said here Dave. That is all very obvious. But...................

That does not change the fact that I can attempt to (and should attempt to) change an arbitrary application of the forum rules when I see it.

[Dave Parker]

I don't disagree with anything you have said here Dave. That is all very obvious. But...................

That does not change the fact that I can attempt to (and should attempt to) change an arbitrary application of the forum rules when I see it.

The biggest problem Kirk, is arbitrary application of the rules comes with the ownership of the system, anyone of us that posts on a privately owned system is at the will and mercy of the person that owns it and sets the rules...this is not a democracy, it is in fact a privately owned system, I didn't see the thread in question that was deleted, so really have no horse in this race, but when it ultimately comes down to it, It was and is the owners choice...to allow or dis-allow a posting, period.

And believe you me, I have had messages deleted over the years on many different systems.

Dave

[Don Hutton]

Kirk

Perhaps if Steve hadn't so frequently flaunted the promotion of VC in this forum and had more often abided by the forum guidelines in general regarding commercialism (he has had several postings removed - this is hardly the first), perhaps QT would have seen things differently. Personally, I noticed Steve putting up a new posting everytime I saw a Magnachrome one... almost seemed to be a retort...

I'm sort of surprised that the View Camera editorial staff who have rushed in to Steve's defence here insisting on "equality" actually haven't once pointed out in this thread that Steve's own poor behaviour on this forum in the past, and Michael's general adherence to the guidelines may have had more than a little to do with the different treatment. However, we all mostly see, read and believe what we like...

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Dave,

That is true but when rules are not applied fairly in similar situations it will cause people to think twice about posting and participating. You are totally correct, it is QT's site and he can do or not do as he pleases. But then, why even have rules if this is the case? Why not just let QT and the moderators delete and control as they wish, it is their choice after all. Of course, this would kill the forum as people would no longer participate (IMO).

[David Karp]

I don't think that anyone is questioning QT's right to do things as he sees fit. He has created this forum and is responsible for starting this community. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

The moderators, however, have recognized the value of the input. If they and QT agree that forum rules need modification, then we will have a modification. If not, then we won't. They have a tough job, and as others have stated, I appreciate their willingness to take on the responsibility.

Also, if anyone is ever unsure as to whether or not a post they are considering is appropriate, it is possible to contact a moderator and ask first. This is not in reference to Steve's post, but just in general.

[Dave Parker]

Dave,

That is true but when rules are not applied fairly in similar situations it will cause people to think twice about posting and participating. You are totally correct, it is QT's site and he can do or not do as he pleases. But then, why even have rules if this is the case? Why not just let QT and the moderators delete and control as they wish, it is their choice after all. Of course, this would kill the forum as people would no longer participate (IMO).

Eric,

I agree 100%, but it is the owners and the moderators call, if the forum dies, then the public that posts to it has made their choice, people have choices, the owners, the moderators and the posters, it is up to each individual to choose what they want to do, I just don't think questioning the owner of the website is the right course of action, if you don't like the choice that was made, then don't post, if your okay with it, then continue to post, the market will determine what is right and wrong, that is my only point. When it comes down to it, with this forum, it is in fact HIS rules...period..

Dave

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Got it, thanks.

[alec4444]

When it comes down to it, with this forum, it is in fact HIS rules...period..

I agree, that is a solid point. It just bugs me when these rules seem to single out one source among so many that could qualify... It makes me wonder if there isn't something personal about it after all.

I said I wasn't going to go on about this but I just read this post and it kinda stuck in my craw:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23437

--A

[Kirk Gittings]

First off,

It was Neil Poulsen's call and it is the policy that a moderator will not be over ruled by other moderators. If you read Neil's justification of deletion above and my reprinting of the MagnaChrom posting, it is impossible for me to understand Neil's distinction between the problem with the VC thread vs. the MC thread. I just don't get it.

David,

I argue with business owners over their business practices all the time. I would do the same to you. This forum may be not for profit and the property of QT, but that changes absolutely nothing in my view.

Don,

So because Steve may have violated rules in the past then he has to adhere to stricter rules now than MC? That clarifies things for everybody.

[Dave Parker]

I agree, that is a solid point. It just bugs me when these rules seem to single out one source among so many that could qualify... It makes me wonder if there isn't something personal about it after all.

I said I wasn't going to go on about this but I just read this post and it kinda stuck in my craw:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23437

--A

Alec,

I agree with you as well, I have been the subject of arbitrary rules applications, quite a few times over the last three years, not because I am a photographer, but because I own a business and unfortunately, no matter what side of the issue you are on, that is the way it is going to be.

After owning a internet ISP service for over ten years now, I have really come to the realization, the internet has nothing to do with democracy, but personal choice..and the choice belongs to those who own the particular system..

So be it, I am still glad to have a place to post.

Dave

[Dave Parker]

First off,

It was Neil Poulsen's call and it is the policy that a moderator will not be over ruled by other moderators. If you read Neil's justification of deletion above and my reprinting of the MagnaChrom posting, it is impossible for me to understand Neil's distinction between the problem with the VC thread vs. the MC thread. I just don't get it.




Kirk,

There in might be one of the problems, YOU don't have to get it, the choice was made, period. By the people in control of this particular system. And believe me, I am not trying to start anything, but when it comes to this system or any other system for that matter, we have choices as do the owners and the moderation team..When it comes down to it, we all have to abide by the rules of the person who owns the system and I know for a fact, this can change from day to day in the manner in which they are applied!

Dave

[Don Hutton]

Don,

So because Steve may have violated rules in the past then he has to adhere to stricter rules now than MC? That clarifies things for everybody.


Kirk

I'm not suggesting that it's "fair", "reasonable" or anything else - you are one of the people who can't understand "why" (I do...) - I'm just offering a possible explanation as to why apparently "unequal" treatment has occurred.

It really doesn't matter, because this forum ain't your's, Steve's nor mine. So either we do what we're told, or don't get to participate. Incredibly simple.

[Kirk Gittings]

There in might be one of the problems, YOU don't have to get it

Dave, Actually, I do need to get it, because I announce my own workshops, books, articles etc. here. It is very relevant to me to understand this seemingly inconsistent policy. Sorry to be so blunt, but what I don't need to understand is your reasoning.

[Dave Parker]

Dave, Actually, I do need to get it, because I announce my own workshops, books, articles etc. here. It is very relevant to me to understand this seemingly inconsistent policy. Sorry to be so blunt, but what I don't need to understand is your reasoning.

Kirk,

It is always arbitrary...have you been deleted? That is just the way it is...if you don't like it, I would suggest starting your own...as I said, I am not trying to start anything, apparently, if your announcing your stuff and it has not been deleted, then you are following the rules as set down by the people that control the system..at the point in time, that you get deleted, then you should ask..why? Myself personally, think all of the commercial postings should be deleted, but that is just me, and that is why I don't post a commercial ad, even though I have been invited to post an announcement by one of the moderators..

It is, what it is...as far as I can see, post it, if it is not perceived to be the correct type of posting it will be deleted, if it is okay, it will be left to stand...at this point in time, your announcements have not been deleted, so, I guess you have fit the requirements..as set down by those who own the system, feel good..really you don't have to understand it, you just need to follow it..as far as understanding my reasoning, I don't see where that comes into it at all, the rules are the rules, and they are subject to the whims, desires and interpretation by the people who control the situation and I understand that..I don't worry about it, if I get deleted, I don't question it, period..

Dave

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW,

My intent here was to engage the moderators in a public discussion of these issues. That is obviously not going to happen. So I am signing off.

[Don Hutton]

FWIW,

My intent here was to engage the moderators in a public discussion of these issues. That is obviously not going to happen. So I am signing off.

Wow! Kirk - are you sure you just don't like what you read? Because I just re-read the whole thread and:

"The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site." QT

"Pretty much everything that is published on the web is connected in some way to a for-profit venture. This forum doesn't exist in a vacum and allows references or links to such material, *as long as the material is accessible for free to the reader*. This is already spelled out in the guidelines." QT

"Not permitted.

However, if you write a wonderful and relevant article about some aspects of your photography, you can post a link to it, regardless on where it is hosted.

The signature link is also authorized, as a courtesy, in recognition of the value of your postings." QT

I personally don't like the repetitive nature of either magazine's announcement posts. 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. I subscribe to both periodicals and don't see the need for issue announcements. I get an announcement via email from MagnaChrome and I think that's plenty.

It's good that we know that these resources are available, but single posts by their owners about their existence should be sufficient. If they are good, we'll hear about them in the course of general discussion. 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." TW

"Also:

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

"This is the guideline on which the decision to delete the thread in question was based:

>> Conferences, Workshops, Books and Gallery Openings - Announcements of conferences, LF-related trade shows, workshops, book releases and gallery openings may be posted to the Announcements sub-forum (one per event only, please).

In general, we definitely want to allow, in a non-repetitive way, announcements of educational events. View Camera is of course educational. Announcing the availability of a new periodical falls within this guideline. But, announcing individual issues of a periodical steps outside the non-repetitive portion of this guideline.

In deciding on this guideline, we've tried to draw a fair line between making information of interest to forum contributors available, yet limiting commercial advertising that could otherwise dilute the topics of interest, which relate to large format photography.

We've also tried to make exceptions for announcements of events, etc., that are free to contributors. But given how the guidelines are structured, we may want to review further whether periodicals that are free to contributors don't also fall under the above guideline.

The guidelines have been written to benefit people who have an interest in large format photography, given that the LF Forum is a non-profit, educational entity. Thanks for your input on this matter. It's through input like this that the guidelines have evolved over the years." NP

"Since I've got two horses in this race, one for View Camera and one for the Moderation Team I figured it was time for me to chime in.

By and large all the comments have been well thought out and very useful to us as we move forward to continue to revise and rethink both the guidelines and how they are interperted. There is no reason to close the thread but I do think we have all the info and, believe me, we have a lot to chew on and think about.

Thanks to all for their contributions." TH

It would seem that apart from Ralph, all the other moderators were engaged....

[Kirk Gittings]

Thats the key. They were engaged. They are not anymore.

[Tom Westbrook]

So is MagnaCHROM and all the people announcing workshops, books, calendars, etc. in the Announcements section. Why is one commercial enterprise forbidden from sharing information and others are permitted to post announcements, including prices, about their products and services?
Kerry

Again, the key is the non-repetitive clause in the guidelines. If there are inconsistent applications of the entire commercial posting guideline, site them (other than the MagnaChrom one, which we're already abundantly aware of) and we can discuss the alleged breaches.



Dave, Actually, I do need to get it, because I announce my own workshops, books, articles etc. here. It is very relevant to me to understand this seemingly inconsistent policy. Sorry to be so blunt, but what I don't need to understand is your reasoning.

See above.

[Kirk Gittings]

If there are inconsistent applications of the entire commercial posting guideline, site them (other than the MagnaChrom one, which we're already abundantly aware of) and we can discuss the alleged breaches.

Tom,

Not of late IMO. I am only referring to the seemingly capricious nature of the VC deletion as simultaneously Magnachrom is doing virtually same thing.

[David Luttmann]

Considering the small amount of publications dealing with Large Format....you'd think the moderators would be interested in allowing as much coverage as possible. I enjoy both VC and MC.....and want to read about both here.

It appears it's the moderators that need to be updated on how to keep people interested in LF community. Arbitrarily deleting threads is not a method of expanding the LF community and as such, the moderators need to change their stance.

[Marko]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23507

[neil poulsen]

. . . If you read Neil's justification of deletion above and my reprinting of the MagnaChrom posting, it is impossible for me to understand Neil's distinction between the problem with the VC thread vs. the MC thread. I just don't get it. . . .

I made no distinction, other than MagnaChrome is free to contributors. But in my response, I also stated the following, "But given how the guidelines are structured, we may want to review further whether periodicals that are free to forum participants don't also fall under the above guideline."

There's no question that the deleted thread violated the guidelines. The question that remains is whether we want to allow periodicals that are free to contributors to announce each issue, and as moderators, we will likely want to discuss that further. We have the guidelines, we want to be fair in their application.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Again, the key is the non-repetitive clause in the guidelines. If there are inconsistent applications of the entire commercial posting guideline, site them (other than the MagnaChrom one, which we're already abundantly aware of) and we can discuss the alleged breaches.

Tom,

I did not intend to start some kind of contest, but since you asked me specifically, here are a couple of recent examples of repetitive announcements for commercial ventures that were not deleted by the forum moderators (please note: I am not suggesting the moderators delete any of these posts, just supplying the examples you requested):

Two announcements in two days, that's about as repetitive as it gets - f295 Symposium Registration Information (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23437) Plus, this is also a repeat of an announcement made a month ago under a separate post (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=22587) - I guess that makes it a triple.

One announcement, plus a "bump" 14 days later designed to call attention to the thread and the event - NELFPC at the Valley Photo Center (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23020)

Those have both occurred within the last week. I don't feel like searching further back, but hopefully those examples will be sufficient to show that some commercial ventures are allowed to post repetitive announcements without deletion by the forum moderators.

And, I suppose it comes down to how you define "repetitive". Is a single listing of the table of contents of an individual issue of a periodical really repetitive. If so, then MagnaCHROM is just as guilty as View Camera in this case since they announce every new issue here by starting a new thread. A potential solution would to allow each publication a single thread that they can update one time when each new issue comes out. Just a thought.

Kerry

[roteague]

I ask, once again. What is wrong with allowing commercial announcements, if they are for the good of the LF community and if it isn't abused?

I still can't help but see this as Steve Simmons being singled out.

[Kirk Gittings]

The question that remains is whether we want to allow periodicals that are free to contributors to announce each issue

I understand and respect your point of view. I just don't agree with it. To me yours is a straw argument, because MC is simply using the forum to boost viewers to generate and validate advertising revenue. I think Michael's approach is clever, but it is not a public service, as this forum is. It remains to be seen whether MC will be profitable, but make no mistake, profit is the goal of the MC postings on the LF forum.

To me a more valid distinction would be between real non-profit media (who do not sell advertising or subscriptions) and for-profit media who sell whatever.

An example of a true non-profit would be Tim Atherton's Musings http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/, which I find immensely interesting. It is not a thinly disguised profit center.

Hopefully I have made my personal distinction clear. having perhaps done that......

I actually think that the VC posting (abstracted from the history) and the MC posting should be allowed because even though they are profit driven they do provide a valuable service to the LF community. It is useful to me to know what is in the current issue, because being so damn busy I am not one to go look. I actually wish the other magazines like B&W would do it also and equipment manufacturers too.

May I suggest a new category for Commercial Announcements?

Thanks for putting up with me............I really do have good intentions.

[Tom Westbrook]

Tom,

I did not intend to start some kind of contest, but since you asked me specifically, here are a couple of recent examples of repetitive announcements for commercial ventures that were not deleted by the forum moderators (please note: I am not suggesting the moderators delete any of these posts, just supplying the examples you requested):

Two announcements in two days, that's about as repetitive as it gets - f295 Symposium Registration Information (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23437) Plus, this is also a repeat of an announcement made a month ago under a separate post (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=22587) - I guess that makes it a triple.

One announcement, plus a "bump" 14 days later designed to call attention to the thread and the event - NELFPC at the Valley Photo Center (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23020)

Those have both occurred within the last week. I don't feel like searching further back, but hopefully those examples will be sufficient to show that some commercial ventures are allowed to post repetitive announcements without deletion by the forum moderators.

And, I suppose it comes down to how you define "repetitive". Is a single listing of the table of contents of an individual issue of a periodical really repetitive. If so, then MagnaCHROM is just as guilty as View Camera in this case since they announce every new issue here by starting a new thread. A potential solution would to allow each publication a single thread that they can update one time when each new issue comes out. Just a thought.
Kerry

Fair enough. I'd have to agree that the examples you mention are probably outside the guidelines and I encourage members to report such things when we don't catch them. We don't read every post that arrives here and we rely a certain extent on members to help out by reporting posts they feel are outside the guidelines.

The issue posts are repetitive in that they are about the same product, which is the periodical itself. It's still VC or MC magazine. I personally agree that MC shouldn't be posting issue announcements, either, but the mods are discussing it and I do see the point that MC is free and VC is not, which from the consumer's perspective puts it a different class of products.

I don't have any fish to fry with Steve. As I've said, I'm a subscriber and a fairly happy one, so I'm not singling him out as others have been indicating the mods are guilty of. We may be a sensitive due to past behavior, but i don't think anyone here has it out for him. The guidelines are there for all to read and I don't think we need an exception for issue posts.

[tim atherton]

The issue posts are repetitive in that they are about the same product, which is the periodical itself. It's still VC or MC magazine. I personally agree that MC shouldn't be posting issue announcements, either, but the mods are discussing it and I do see the point that MC is free and VC is not, which from the consumer's perspective puts it a different class of products.
.


I think there have also probably been at least a couple of announcements about the latest Focus Mag issue when they come around - which crosses across both - it costs at the newsstand but is free on the website.... so which is it?

Then there is every time a linhof or tripod is mentioned and an ad pops up for HP Marketing... (but almost nobody minds that because Bob will answer our serial number questions for free)

Or every time Steve mentions his (very useful) book each time a newcomer asks a standard newbie question

So where do you draw the line. Do we have no commercial posts? One only allowed (I'm all for the one-off book/show/workshop etc announcement). Do we only allow repeatable commercial posts from those "valued to the LF cause"...? Or do we "licence" commercial posters - licensed users are allowed xx posts per year on the "commercial notices" sub-forum?

I have the same quandary as most - I don't want to be snowed under with commercial posts, but I do want to know about workshops, new niche products that might not be widely advertised etc (aka cake and eat it) :-)

[neil poulsen]

To me a more valid distinction would be between real non-profit media (who do not sell advertising or subscriptions) and for-profit media who sell whatever.

Kirk,

The interesting thing is that I think there's a close relationship between the guidelines as currently stated and the distinction that you make. I'm referring to the third of the following three applicable guidelines.

>> Conferences, Workshops, Books and Gallery Openings - Announcements of conferences, LF-related trade shows, workshops, book releases and gallery openings may be posted to the Announcements sub-forum (one per event only, please).

>> New products and services - Annoucements of new products and services of specific interest to large format photographers may be posted to the New products and services sub-forum. Promotional posts (as defined below) require moderator approval.

>> Other Commercial Posts - Except as noted above, other "promotional" posts promoting your own business enterprise, or one to which you are financially connected (e.g. owner, employee, contractor), are not allowed.

If a media is not bringing in money selling advertising or subscriptions, then an owner, employee, or contractor probably wouldn't have a financial connection to that media.

[Kirk Gittings]

but the mods are discussing it and I do see the point that MC is free and VC is not, which from the consumer's perspective puts it a different class of products.

VC actually does offer truly free articles on its website whereas for MC you have to register with your email address, because they are building a data base to quantify viewers to justify add rates.

I really don't get the confusion on this point. With MC you may not be paying money for a subscription, but you are paying with personal information which is used as a kind of currency with potential advertisers to generate revenue.

I was a business major like 35 years ago. I can't be the only one here with a business background who sees through this.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think part of it is not the specific content of any one post, but how much goodwill someone generates on the forum apart from their commercial posts.

For instance, there is a chemical manufacturer who posts on various forums almost exclusively to promote his products, whether or not anyone asks about them, so it starts to look spammy. Someone starts a thread about fixer, and he jumps in and says, "hey, my fixer will solve all your problems!" This is just annoying.

Bob Salomon responds to queries, but he doesn't make a new product announcement every time a manufacturer that he represents introduces a new product, and he doesn't jump in with a post flacking Linhof tripods every time there is a thread about tripods (unless someone specifically asks about Linhof tripods). Michael Sullivan often posts about topics unrelated to MAGNAchrom, so I can see a case for giving him some leeway. People who are active participants in the forum who make one off posts about a show or a new book or workshop generally have a large ratio of goodwill to commercial interest, so there should be no problem with that, in my opinion.

[Marko]

Fair enough. I'd have to agree that the examples you mention are probably outside the guidelines and I encourage members to report such things when we don't catch them. We don't read every post that arrives here and we rely a certain extent on members to help out by reporting posts they feel are outside the guidelines.

The issue posts are repetitive in that they are about the same product, which is the periodical itself. It's still VC or MC magazine. I personally agree that MC shouldn't be posting issue announcements, either, but the mods are discussing it and I do see the point that MC is free and VC is not, which from the consumer's perspective puts it a different class of products.

I don't have any fish to fry with Steve. As I've said, I'm a subscriber and a fairly happy one, so I'm not singling him out as others have been indicating the mods are guilty of. We may be a sensitive due to past behavior, but i don't think anyone here has it out for him. The guidelines are there for all to read and I don't think we need an exception for issue posts.

Tom,

I think that the real issue here is that the announcements the way VC does them provide them - i.e. an information about the content rather than overt pushing of the product - provides more benefit to the community as such than it does any harm to the board or the rules. Ditto for MC and many other entities.

It seems pretty safe to conclude, based on all the input so far, that the majority of users here actually want to see those kinds of announcements. In that light, I think it would be far more constructive and pragmatic to ammend the rules the way Kirk has suggested, for example, than to keep insisting on "sticking to the rules" and inviting the users to "report" any such instance.

After all, if most of us want to see them, who's going to report and what will be the outcome as far as the board is concerned? I, for one, am not going to report as delinquent posts that I find informative and useful, but I am going to object if they get deleted.

I am afraid that this is rapidly becoming a battle of egos of some sort and if that is really the case, the outcome will be equally bad for all.

[tim atherton]

Bob Salomon responds to queries, but he doesn't make a new product announcement every time a manufacturer that he represents introduces a new product, and he doesn't jump in with a post flacking Linhof tripods every time there is a thread about tripods .

Ha - not far off "hey, I'm looking for a mount to fix a camera to my ice axe" "Hey - go Novoflex" "I'm looking for a lightweight tripod strong enough to hold my 8x10 Dumbledorff" "Hey - the Linhof doohickey just fits your needs" etc etc ad infinitum....

At least when Steve suggests his book, he always suggests several other options as well

[sanking]

I think part of it is not the specific content of any one post, but how much goodwill someone generates on the forum apart from their commercial posts.

For instance, there is a chemical manufacturer who posts on various forums almost exclusively to promote his products, whether or not anyone asks about them, so it starts to look spammy. Someone starts a thread about fixer, and he jumps in and says, "hey, my fixer will solve all your problems!" This is just annoying.

Bob Salomon responds to queries, but he doesn't make a new product announcement every time a manufacturer that he represents introduces a new product, and he doesn't jump in with a post flacking Linhof tripods every time there is a thread about tripods (unless someone specifically asks about Linhof tripods). Michael Sullivan often posts about topics unrelated to MAGNAchrom, so I can see a case for giving him some leeway. People who are active participants in the forum who make one off posts about a show or a new book or workshop generally have a large ratio of goodwill to commercial interest, so there should be no problem with that, in my opinion.


I agree with David Goldfarb. It is not about the specific content of any specific messages, but "how much goodwill someone generates on the forum, over time, apart from their commercial posts."


And one should, if he/she has enough historical awareness, look at this issue not just from the current tightly focused discussion, but from the perspective of the nature of the participants discussions not only on the LF forum, but in other photography forums as well, i.e. rec.photo. newsgroups, APUG, etc. over a period of time. If one person, just for example, has a history of some 10,000 self-serving messages, in comparison to many less by the other, is it really fair to insist on comparing just what is before our eyes in the present discussion? One might also look at how objective and impartial the persons in questions have been in separating personal and professional issues.


Sandy King

[alec4444]

I think part of it is not the specific content of any one post, but how much goodwill someone generates on the forum apart from their commercial posts....

Actually, I think this really is where the line should be drawn....And I think the Moderators need to take a look at past postings from a user to make an evaluation.

Compare tpersin (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/search.php?searchid=736371) versus steve simmons (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/search.php?searchid=736374) for an example.

I know you have rules, and there's good reason for those but IMHO this is where you draw the line when applying them.

--A

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Fair enough. I'd have to agree that the examples you mention are probably outside the guidelines and I encourage members to report such things when we don't catch them. We don't read every post that arrives here and we rely a certain extent on members to help out by reporting posts they feel are outside the guidelines.

Tom,

Thanks for the response. I did not report those posts, and likely will not in the future, because while they may be technically a violation of the forum guidelines, I did not find them offensive or egregious in any way (I only posted them here as a direct reponse to your question). Ditto for the MagnaCHROM postings - they don't offend me one iota and I have no problem with them appearing in the Announcements section (however, if one for-profit publication is allowed to post the contents of every issue, shouldn't all relevant for-profit publications receive equal treatment?). Seriously, it's just information that may, or may not, be of interest to people who read these forums (pretty much like everything else that gets posted here). When it comes to information about large format photography, I'm of the belief that more is better and when deleting/closing threads, I personally believe it is better to be a little lenient than too strict. We're all perfectly capable of ignoring the threads that don't interest us personally. Just my personal opinions.

Kerry

[David Luttmann]

Well,

If the moderators were trying to remove attention from the VC thread by deleting it....I'd say based upon the number of posts here that they failed miserably.

[sanking]

Well,

If the moderators were trying to remove attention from the VC thread by deleting it....I'd say based upon the number of posts here that they failed miserably.

When notoriety for its own sake sells, as it clearly does in today's world of Paris Hilton and her wannabes, I would award a big thumbs up for promotion to the person who promoted this thread.


Sandy

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Well,

If the moderators were trying to remove attention from the VC thread by deleting it....I'd say based upon the number of posts here that they failed miserably.

Yes, and I've violated my own personal policy of participating in a thread that generated more than 40 responses within a 48 hour period (usually a sure sign that a thread has degenerated into a hopeless flame war). I must say that for a thread with so many responses and differing viewpoints, this one has remained quite civil and respectful. Here's to hoping it stays that way.

Kerry

[Brian Ellis]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other but I get MAGNAchrome for free. I pay for my subscription to View Camera magazine and I'd pay if I bought it at a news stand. When a rule relating to commercial promotion is being applied,I don't have a major problem with distinguishing between a publication that's offered for free differently from one that isn't free. I also wouldn't have had a problem with leaving the View Camera table of contents here, I don't think it was posted in obvious disregard of the Forum rules nor was it a blatant solicitation for business. But either way, I admire QT for trying to keep this forum commercial-free, especially in this situation where I'm sure he knew he would come in for some criticism.

I think everyone should recognize that when it comes to commercial promotions there are going to be gray areas. This to me is one of them. I think QT could have come down on either side of the line with this one. It wouldn't have bothered me if he had let the table of contents stay in, it doesn't bother me that he deleted it. Respectable arguments can be made for either course of action and most of them have been made in this thread. But I don't think he should be criticized for drawing a line that isn't always easy to draw and deciding that this particular promotion came down on the wrong side of it.

I will also say that all the various View Camera magazine contributors objecting to deletion of this promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and please lets not be naive, when a LF magazine publishes its table of contents on a LF web site it's done to promote the magazine, it isn't an act of charity). About 25% of all the messages posted in this thread come from contributors to the magazine and 100% of them oppose deletion of the table of contents. I think it's to Steve's credit that he's chosen to remain silent and I think it would have been nice if the various contributors to the magazine had done the same, as much as I respect all of you and as honest as I'm sure your expressions of opinion were.

[Wayne]

I fully agree with the deletion of the post, based on QT's explanation. As if it matters what I think, because this is his forum. I seriously doubt if anyone singled out Steve, but he has a long colorful history of pushing the gray area of commercial posts both here and elsewhere so his borderline/over the borderline posts are inevitably going to get noticed. Theres no such thing as bad publicity, right?

Wayne

[sanking]

I will also say that all the various View Camera magazine contributors objecting to deletion of this promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and please lets not be naive, when a LF magazine publishes its table of contents on a LF web site it's done to promote the magazine, it isn't an act of charity). About 25% of all the messages posted in this thread come from contributors to the magazine and 100% of them oppose deletion of the table of contents. I think it's to Steve's credit that he's chosen to remain silent and I think it would have been nice if the various contributors to the magazine had done the same, as much as I respect all of you and as honest as I'm sure your expressions of opinion were.

My sentiments exactly. And especial kudos to View Camera contribiutor Ted Harris.

[Bob Gentile]

"... I ask, once again. What is wrong with allowing commercial announcements, if they are for the good of the LF community and if it isn't abused...?"I agree. Shouldn't a post (or thread) be judged on its own merits? I don't understand the reason for discriminating between commercial and non-profit in a case like this -- we're not talking about their tax status. And surely we're all adult enough to make allowances for perceived motivations.

It's not as though the players involved are going to exert any undue influence on this forum. I can't see how whether View Camera or MAGNAchrom is or isn't a commercial venture has any relevance.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr... they should not be judged by the nature of their income but by the content of their contributions.

[sanking]

I will also say that all the various View Camera magazine contributors objecting to deletion of this promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and please lets not be naive, when a LF magazine publishes its table of contents on a LF web site it's done to promote the magazine, it isn't an act of charity). About 25% of all the messages posted in this thread come from contributors to the magazine and 100% of them oppose deletion of the table of contents. I think it's to Steve's credit that he's chosen to remain silent and I think it would have been nice if the various contributors to the magazine had done the same, as much as I respect all of you and as honest as I'm sure your expressions of opinion were.

Brian,

Well said.


Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

Brian,


I will also say that all the various View Camera magazine contributors objecting to deletion of this promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth

I believe none of the VC contributers you refer to hid that relationship or have anything in the upcoming mentioned issue to hawk. Also, there were some contributers to MagnaChrom as well who objected to the deletion of the VC post including Allen Rumme, Eric Biggerstaff (also a VC contributer) and even J Michael Sullivan (and in a round about way myself, because I was the one who suggested the article on Allen Rumme by Eric to J Michael, I hope to aid in others getting published). So that issue of VC contributers and their self serving objections are not all that clear. This is a small incestuous community that is full of cross fertilization. A similar example. I have a 26 year relationship with Calumet yet I am on the advisory board of Freestyle. Go figure. It is a small community.

MagnaChrom has not argued that their so called "free content" places them in a different status than View Camera. To his credit, J Michael argued that the VC post should not have been deleted.
I agree with all the above. Steve's post was just "informative" providing a table of contents for the next issue of VC, of which I am a long-time subscriber (in fact, I own every single issue of VC, even the very first one).

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I think this point is the key. MagnaChrom is not free in a larger sense. You "pay" with personal information that enables MC to justify its ad rates. Try registering with a fake email address. You can't. With verifiable information Michael can "sell" his audience to advertisers. Sometimes I myself find this kind of payment to high a price to pay and refuse to register for some sites. I did not feel that way about J Michael and MC, but I was perfectly aware of what the information would be used for and understood its necessity. More power to Michael. It is a clever business model adapted to contemporary technology.

These guys (Steve and J Michael) are not predators. They are part of this community and provide a very valuable service to us all. For the life of me, I don't get the deletion. The post was sooooo tame.

[Bob Gentile]

"... These guys (Steve and J Michael) are not predators. They are part of this community and provide a very valuable service to us all. For the life of me, I don't get the deletion..."
As I don't get the discrimination between commercial and not-for-profit status. What's the big deal? Where does this come from?

[steve simmons]

OK, I've sat on the sidelines as long as I can.

First of all I want to say a very sincere thank you to all the supporters who have challenged the deletion of the post about View Camera. I wanted to stay out of this because all to often my participation seems to throw gas on a fire.

But, and it is a big one :) Lets look at the claim that Magnachrome is free. In order to get this 'free' publication you have to provide contact information which will allow Magnachrome to contact you at any time about anything. So what, just give a bogus e-mail addess you say. Won't work. You still can not download this free publication until your e-mail is confirmed by the company.

Now, as a longtime publisher there are two reasons for wanting this info

1. To impress advertisers about your readership to increase ad prices. As people from this forum subscribe to this free publication they are padding the publisher's wallet by giving him ammo to get more money for advertising. Also, their names can be sold or bartered to advertisers in return for ads.

2. To develop an e-mail blast list for future solicitations. As people from this forum sign up they are providing contact info to the publisher for future solicitations about anything he wants - soap, subscriptions, workshops, insurance, etc., etc.

On the other hand, in the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site no registration is required. Just go get the info you want. We won't know if you do or not and we have no way of following up to solicit anything from you. Yes, we have a subscriber list but we have publically said many times over our 20 year history of publication that we do not sell our list to advertisers.

Yes, View Camera helps support me and in that case is a for profit venture. I have never tried to hide that fact.But if anyone thinks I am gettng fat and sassy off of this you are mistaken. All during the time I have published View Camera I have supplemented my income either as a freelance architectural photographer, by starting another magazine, or now by doing free lance articles as a photographer and writer for a variety of magazines.

Do I think that Magnachrome's post should be deleted also. No. How about Satin Snow's frequent 'updates' on his products or the repeated posts about f295, the repeated posts about the T-Max order, or any of the other 'commercial' posts. Probably not. To a certain extent they all foster and encourage something we all care about. But lets not gild a lilly by trying to claim it is free or performing an altruistic public service devoid of any current or future monetary gain. Where as View Camera gets a portion of its income up front from subscribers Magnachrome has chosen to get its money after the fact from advertisers by showing a list of registered users who can also be solicited by e-mail. Dishonest. No, but a business model nevertheless.

As for the comment about people associated with View Camera staying out of this discussion that is simply unfair. Some of the most knowlegable people here contribute to View Camera and to exclude them is to exclude a huge knowledge base about large format photography not to mention the fact that they have conducted themselves honorably an 25+ years of running businesses, being in public service, etc. Would the person who made this comment expect contributors to Magnachrome to stay out of this discussion. If so I would like to hear him say so. Such people as Kirk Gittings Sandy King, Ted Harris, Eric Biggerstaf, Kerry Thalmann, etc, have all contibuted recently to View Camera. Should they all stay out of this discussion?

just my 2 cents.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Brian,


These guys (Steve and J Michael) are not predators. They are part of this community and provide a very valuable service to us all. For the life of me, I don't get the deletion. The post was sooooo tame.

Kirk,

Brian suggested the obvious. There are times when contributors to View Camea should just shut up. This is perhaps one of those times.

Sandy

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I will also say that all the various View Camera magazine contributors objecting to deletion of this promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and please lets not be naive, when a LF magazine publishes its table of contents on a LF web site it's done to promote the magazine, it isn't an act of charity). About 25% of all the messages posted in this thread come from contributors to the magazine and 100% of them oppose deletion of the table of contents. I think it's to Steve's credit that he's chosen to remain silent and I think it would have been nice if the various contributors to the magazine had done the same, as much as I respect all of you and as honest as I'm sure your expressions of opinion were.

Brian,

All of the View Camera contributors have been very forthcoming about their affiliations with the magazine. Nobody here is trying to be deceptive in any way. I clearly stated my affiliation with the magazine in the very first line of my first post in this thread. Like all of the other View Camera contributors participating in this thread, I am also a long time and frequent contributor to this forum and the static pages at this site. In fact, I have been a contributor here much longer than I have been a View Camera contributor. I have strong loyalties to both. I want both to be the best they can be. That's why I chose to paticipate in this discussion.

Kerry

[Bob Gentile]

""... First of all I want to say a very sincere thank you to all the supporters who have challenged the deletion of the post about View Camera..."
I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor, so your comments beg the question... what does the commercial status of a poster have to do with the value of his post? Who cares whether View Camera is a commercial venture where MAGNAchrom is not? And, for those who do care... WHY? What's the difference vis-a-vis the value of the comments?

The content of a post has nothing to do with its motivation -- they should be judged independently. Those who object to posts because of the affiliations of the posters are just tossing out red herrings! An opinion should be judged on its own merits... NOT on whose opinion it is!

[Brian Ellis]

"Would the person who made this comment expect contributors to Magnachrome to stay out of this discussion. If so I would like to hear him say so."

If the subject under discussion was whether a promotion for MAGNAchrome should be deleted here or not then yes, I think contributors and persons closely associated with it should stay out of that discussion. I mentioned MAGNAchrome only because someone said they saw no difference between it and View Camera. I said I thought the fact that I pay for one and don't pay for the other (and obviously I meant pay money, not "pay" by giving personal information) was a sufficient distinction when the issue involves promotion by commercial enterprises (or something along those lines, I'm too tired to search for the exact language). But then it certainly wouldn't bother me if all promotions by MAGNAchrome were deleted too notwithstanding its free (i.e. pay no money) status.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that I've inadvertantly stepped into the middle of some possible antagonism or rivalry that I didn't know existed between MAGNAchrome and View Camera so I think I'll just bow out of this discussion, it certainly was not my intention to cast MAGNAchrome as the "good guy" and View Camera as the bad. As to my comments about contributors to View Camera in this discussion, I'll stand by what I said earlier and hopefully we can all just agree to respectfully disagree about the propriety of their participation in this discussion.

[Dave Parker]

. No. How about Satin Snow's frequent 'updates' on his products


Steve,

I take a big freaking exception to this part of your post, I have never posted an update about my product on this system, period and I challenge you to provide a link to a thread in which I did, you are wrong in your posting of this, and it is one of the reasons, I will not advertise in your magazine, you have brow beat people over the years, and asked me, how can I not advertise in the only magazine that supports me!, I will be damned if I will put up with a out and out lie, but I again, challenge you to produce a link to a post on this website that I started, to update my product status..not once have I started a thread here to update anything, yes my customers have, but I have not...And being honest with you, if ALL of us commercial companies can't post here, there or anywhere, it would not be any skin off my nose..but don't lie Steve...

Dave Parker
Satin Snow Ground Glass

[steve simmons]

From Dave Parker

"I have never posted an update about my product on this system, period and I challenge you to provide a link to a thread in which I did,"

here is one of you recent posts

17-Feb-2007, 15:32 #2
Dave Parker
SatinSnow


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 175 Re: Satin Snowstorm on the way!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Rafael,

Thanks, There should be quite a few that received notification the last couple of days, been burning the candle at both ends and have shipped out a lot of orders the last couple of days, I am trying very hard to get retail customers orders out, because I have several company orders to do as well and these orders are for hundreds of pieces.

Thanks again, we are trying..

Dave


andhere is anther one

Dave Parker
SatinSnow


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 175 Re: Satin Snowstorm on the way!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by buze
Dave, I received my screen too in the UK; 5 months seems to be the standard time for any new order !

In any case, it arrived safely and was on the Crown Graphic in about 45 seconds Thanks!

Thanks Buze,

Glad to hear it arrived okay, we are trying to get faster, but I am very finiky about quality and with the amount of orders we take, there is only my wife and I doing production, fitting, packaging and shipping, and I happen to live in an area that nobody actually picks up at the house here, so I have to drive to town 15 miles one way each day, the logistics of living in Montana, in the winter, can be a challenge! But I love it.

Anyway, glad to hear it arrived okay.

Thanks again.

Dave

Now relax, I clearly said that idid not think your posts, or any of the other examples I described, should be deleted or that you should be banned or anything of the kind. You simply gave an update on your company and products and delivery of orders and according to my post, which I stand by, your posts were fine IMHO. But you are a commercial venture updating the forum on your acivities. Again, I DO NOT THINK YOUR POST WAS INAPPROPRIATE. You produce a product that is of interest to lf photgraphers and this is a lf photography forum. Periodic updates should be fine IMHO.

steve

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

As I don't get the discrimination between commercial and not-for-profit status. What's the big deal? Where does this come from?

Bob,

It's historic. I won't go into every detail, but this forum was originally hosted on donated hardware and software provided by Phillip Greenspun. Since the HW and SW were both donated, comercial postings were banned. It didn't seem fair that someone could come in and turn a profit of the hard work and resources donated by others. For years, everything was fine

At one point a few years ago, without Tuan's consent, the contents of the large format forum at greenspun.com were appropriated and transferred to the commercial photo.net service. This rubbed a lot of people here the wrong way (you can read Tuan's feelings about this here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lf-photonet.html) and here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfphotoinfo.html)).

Through a tremendous effort, new forum software was written from scratch by volunteers and this site was once again hosted on a non-commercial, donated server. The forum now uses commercial software, but the site is still hosted on donated HW and the forums are maintained and moderated by volunteers.

Over time, the absolute ban on commercial posts has softened. Keep in mind, people involved in commercial enterprises have never been banned from posting here. They have always been free to participate in discussions, as long as their posts were not promoting their commercial ventures. About a year ago, the guidelines were ammended to permit one time announcements about LF related conferences and workshops. While those are definitely commercial ventures, it was felt the benefit to the community (call it the greater good), was more important than maintaining an outright ban on all commercial posts. These type of posts are now allowed, but there are restrictions and limitations.

The question here is why was Steve's post singled out and deleted for violating these restrictions while other commercial enterprises are allowed to post repeatedly without having their posted deleted by the moderators.

Kerry

[QT Luong]

We are paying attention to the discussion, but at that time have not reached a consensus. Also Ralph is away, and so will I in the next few days. In the while, a few questions to fuel the discussion:

What is the difference between sending out a flyer to your mailbox describing the contents of a new book, and posting a table of contents for a paying magazine in the forum ? Is one an advertisement, and the other just informational ? Is it relevant that the price of the magazine (which anyways is expected to be in the $4-$10 range) is not mentioned ?

Let assume that I write every two months technical articles or reviews that are posted on my website. Each time a new article is available, I post an abstract to the forum. To read, you have to pay $25/article. Are my announcements acceptable ? What if they require no payment, but just registration (possibly with a free yahoo or hotmail address) ? What if the articles do not even require registration ? What if on my website, I sell photos, which allow me to make a living ? What if all of a sudden I win the lottery, and no longer have them for sale, but just exhibit them as a hobby ?

If there is a periodical that has new material about large format photography every quarter, would it be acceptable for the owner to announce the contents of every new entry ? What about every month ? What about weekly ? What about daily (such as some blogs) ?

Do you want dealers to come on the forum and announce any new product they have ? What about any new inventory they have, so that you don't have to go to their website and check ?

[steve simmons]

As an interested party I think periodic updates should be allowed. As I have explained in my long post Magnachrome is not truly free. Neither was the T-Max film that John and Michael Kadillak promoted activley on this forum. I do not announce the contents of View Camera daily, weekly, or even monthly. I have announced the contents only a few times and no ore often than Magnachrome which makes his money at the backend rather than partially at the front as I do. His model is to mine this list to get contact info for future solicitations which is a violation of the guidleines - there is no other reason to have this verified contact info. To ignore this is either naive or just biased as so many people have said the policy seems to be. This is not just me but many people who have no ties to me at all.

If you are going to ban commercial posts - posts where the poster has any financial interest then ban all of them across the board, not just some. That would mean any product or service that is not truly free - no strings or registration requirement - no conferences, gatherings, workshops, solicitations for selling of film, magazines which cost money or have hidden strings, etc.But I think the forum would lose some of its value which is where people can find out about relevant activities and products related to lf photography.

steve simmons

[QT Luong]

Many forums, including photo.net, enforce a strict non commercial policy in the discussion areas. What's unique about this forum is that we, site operators, have decided not to make money from the site. However, one of the reasons why we switched to the new software (not without effort) was to satisfy a demand for a venue for some commercial announcements as well as classifieds.

The postings that Kerry pointed to were not allowed, and should they have come to the attention of a moderator earlier, they would have been already removed. When someone in the past had a long history of not abiding to forum policy, his posts are more likely to catch the attention of a moderator than someone who doesn't have a problem history.

Differences between VC postings and other recent magazine announcements:

Magnachrom postings: (a) access to contents is free,
(b) Magnachrom is a new magazine without (yet) predictable publication times, (c) the only Magnachrom-related posts are those announcements. (d) the issue is available at the time of posting

Rangefinder posting: (a) poster is not affiliated with magazine, (b) access to contents is free, (c) likely a one-time announcement. (d) the issue is available at the time of posting

As for revising the policy with respect to periodicals, I am open to finding a compromise, and I appreciate any input, including from parties with special interests. It would help, though, if the questions I asked were answered sincerely.

[AlaBill]

First of all I'm new here and my have a slightly different viewpoint than some.

I'm back in large format after shooting digital only for the past 5 years and I have some learning to do and this site is great for that.

I've bought equipment from the classifieds, I found out about Magnachrome from this site, read about Satin Snow here, ordered a 2 year subscription to View Camera, and I read most of the anouncements about workshops although I have not yet taken one. All of this from this website.

THANK YOU QT for this forum and all the information on large format photography. It is really invaluable.

I actually hate the new commercial photo.net site with all the ads popping up everywhere and I don't want to go there, but some of this information is helpful to newbies like me.

Mostly I don't want this discussion to affect the great information shared on this site.

Bill

[al olson]

In my view, a thread listing the contents of the upcoming issue of View Camera falls within the guidelines. Each issue is a one-time event just the same as each annual View Camera Conference is a one-time event.

The table of contents of View Camera provides a list of articles that the large format photographer may find of interest. It is informational. The listing of seminars and workshops for the View Camera Conference serves the same purpose.

The only difference is the frequency of occurrence ... one is bimonthly and the other is annual.

I applaud the purpose of keeping the annoyance of the commercial hucksters from contaminating the content of this forum. However, I presume that Steve's email (haven't seen it, of course) was intended to be informational. As a subscriber (my declaration of conflict of interest) I would look forward to seeing a preview of what will appear in the next issue.

As mentioned earlier, critiquing the articles and policies of View Camera becomes fair game in these threads. Members are free to comment on any aspect of View Camera. If another member of this forum had presented the table of contents, would it have been different?

Steve is making a significant contribution in promoting and supporting the art of large format photography. I view his efforts as being within the context of the forum.

[al olson]

Addendum ...

And now I discover a Fuji promotion called

http://choose-film.com/

This feels much more like a commercial announcement than View Camera's table of contents.

[BrianShaw]

Rangefinder posting: (a) poster is not affiliated with magazine, [snip], (c) likely a one-time announcement.

Ahh, here's the loophole. Steve... for your next issue send me an e-mail with the new VC TOC and I'll post a message for you - something like "Hey folks, I heard through the grapevine that the new VC is being printed and will have articles including: How long is my beard; My format is bigger than yours; The largest collection of seldom used LF lenses; The demise of online photo forums."

DISCLAIMERS:
(1). THIS IS A JOKE
(2). I DON'T KNOW STEVE SIMMONS, NOR DO I RITE FOR HIS MAGAZINE
(3). I SUPPORT THE POSTING OF VC TOC ON A ONCE EVERY SEMI-MONTHLY BASIS AS A PUBLIC SERVICE
(4). THIS IS A JOKE :)

[MJSfoto1956]

As I have explained in my long post Magnachrome [sic] is not truly free.

Actually Steve, it really and truly is free by any normal person's defintion.


I do not announce the contents of View Camera daily, weekly, or even monthly. I have announced the contents only a few times and no ore often than Magnachrome [sic] which makes his money at the backend rather than partially at the front as I do.

Actually, part of the problem Steve is the annoying and persistent habit that you (and your team) have of posting "something" about ViewCamera within hours of any post I attempt to make. For example: how many times did you "announce" the View Camera conference, dude?


His model is to mine this list to get contact info for future solicitations which is a violation of the guidleines - there is no other reason to have this verified contact info.

This is a gross exaggeration Steve. Shame of you. We need verification only to prevent spoofing of our website. Our contract with readers stipulates that we will never sell or rent their email address to anyone. OTOH if anyone has been "mining" this forum it has been you.



To ignore this is either naive or just biased as so many people have said the policy seems to be. This is not just me but many people who have no ties to me at all.

..or perhaps a better explanation is that this statement is nothing more than a thinly-guised attempt at trashing the competition?

*** BEGIN RANT ***

After years of questionable future, the large format community is showing healthy signs of growth. It's time for people to realize that the "pie" is growing too and that there is plenty of room at the table for websites, forums, blogs, online journals, and print journals to CONTRIBUTE in a collaborative way to this growth. There is no reason to trash MC Steve. In spite of your 19 years in the business, the large format world is not yours alone. You need to chill a bit. Go take a long ride on your horse. Likewise, I think posting a table of contents of an EXISTING resource (as opposed to opportunistically posting it weeks before it will ship) should be allowed.

*** END RANT ***

[tim atherton]

Addendum ...

And now I discover a Fuji promotion called

http://choose-film.com/

This feels much more like a commercial announcement than View Camera's table of contents.

I don't know - does baxter work for Fuji?

[Michael Alpert]

The forum has a New Products section. I would like to suggest that each issue of either magazine, each conference organized by a for-profit company, or any equivalent activity be considered a New Product and should be allowed ONE announcement of itself. That way, everyone will have a moment in the sun, the forum will not be endlessly "mined" by mindless promotions, and the forum moderators will have a rule that will not be seen as arbitrary. Does this modest idea make sense to those in charge of the forum?

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually Steve, it really and truly is free by any normal person's defintion.


Come on Michael, If MC were truly totally free it would not require registration with a verifiable email address. If that MC registration is worthless to you, discontinue it and just post the magazine for everyone to see.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Michael,

Don't be so paranoid. Steve is not bashing you or your publication. He is addressing the uneven treatment of his publication by one of the moderating team on this forum.

If you want the magazine to be truly free, do not require registration to download. You know full well the value of the information that you collect, and I'm sure your advertisers have been marketed with this information as a substantial portion of your justification for your advertising rates. Even if you don't offer a mailing list to the advertisers, you are still mining the information to establish the market size, affluence, buying habits, etc. of the readership.

Ultimately, I believe that Steve deserves the same access to this forum that you do, because he is no more commercial than you, and you no less than he. That is what Kirk is arguing, and probably most of the other that have posted in support of VC here.


---Michael

[MJSfoto1956]

Come on Michael, if it were truly free it would not require registration. If that MC registration is worthless to you, discontinue it.

MC does require a simple registration. We don't ask anything personal of you. Not your real name, not your real address, no credit cards. All we ask is that you provide a REAL email address which we need to verify. Just like pretty much all forums on the web (including this one). Please note that there are legal ramifications on distributing other people's intellectual property (i.e. your photographs), and we need to use due dilligence to protect their artwork and words. Hence the formal registration process, WHICH IS TOTALLY FREE.

Kirk, I know for a fact that you have freely provided a real email address to THIS FORUM -- you wouldn't ask the forum to discontinue it, would you? It would make absolutely no sense at all. Give me a break. You are simply being argumentative. And there is no point in it as we mostly agree with each other.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael lets agree to disagree. I'm not going to agree with you on this. Those verifiable registrations are your currency with advertisers. I have worked for some "free" print shelter magazines for 20+ years (now all with websites that you have to register with so they can prove circulation). I know this business.

All.....I have stated my thoughts numerous times above. I think these announcements should stand. I like seeing them and actually wish more magazines would do it here. It helps me decide whether I want to buy something without having to make the trek to the store to look. Call me lazy.

However......I do not like the way that this thread is starting to turn personal and I am going to bow out. I know the moderators as a group are looking at this question seriously and I trust their judgement.

[Michael Alpert]

J. Michael Sullivan stated early on that he did not agree with the deletion. Kirk, everyone understands your first point. Questioning the motives of Sullivan is wrongheaded and beside the point. I think if you do not have to pay anything for something, it is free. Like broadcast TV. It may not be a charity, but it is free.

A few minutes ago, I suggested an avenue that might lead to a solution to this problem of commercial announcements. If anyone has an alternative solution, let's hear it.

[steve simmons]

I would accept Michael Alpert's suggestion. I think it is a good one.

To be fair this should apply to all film sales, product updates and announcements, book announcements, conferences etc., workshops, etc.

Now, what if a third party makes a comment about a product, publication, etc.in another location.Should the owner of that compony marketing that product be allowed to respond? If he answer is yes then, IMHO, the purpose of this rule could easily be defeated by a plant.
I still think Michael's idea is a good one but this is a kink that needs to be addressed.

steve simmons

[Don Hutton]

I would accept Michael Alpert's suggestion. I think it is a good one.

steve simmons

Regardless of what you claim you might accept, your track record indicates that you will continue to ignore the rules anyway... Which is most likely what brought your subsequently deleted post to the moderators' attention.

[Mick Noordewier]

Watching this thread, I'm also disappointed in the personal attacks. My enthusiasm for MC has waned considerably after seeing Michael's unnecessary paranoia.

Kirk is dead on in his observations. I own a (non-photography) business that operates as an advertiser-supported "free" service. This is the same model as MC's, and there is no aspect of either his or my business that is not purely commercial.

Actual names and addresses are only one way to monetize such a business, and I don't use them either. Email registrations may indeed prevent spamming, but they are also proof of readership for advertising clients.

I'm not lobbying for allowing or disallowing either VC or MC posts, but Kirk is correct to observe that Michael's motivations for posting are tangibly commercial.

-Mick

[Michael Alpert]

Steve,

This forum is based on good-will. Without good-will, any rule can be defeated. I think the moderators will need to use their judgement about bogus posts. But, frankly, almost everything posted on this forum seems fine to me. I see no reason to worry when this forum has for many years been managed so thoughtfully.

The only problems come about when hasty, hostile, or off-subject posts, such as the recent ones by Don H. and Mick N., move in. In the case of this thread, the question is about finding a way to allow commercial announcements while keeping the forum noncommercial in nature. It is the noncommercial essence of the thing that makes a free exchange of ideas and information possible. I would say about this forum: so far so good. I hope my suggestion, or a better suggestion by someone else, is adopted by the moderators.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Gentlemen,

At this point, I think the forum moderators have all the data they need to consider this issue and reach a decision. I was very impressed that this thread received well over 100 responses without turning ugly and degerating to personal attacks. As it seems to be trending in that direction, maybe we should all just step back from our keyboards and let the moderators consider the opinions expressed and the suggested solutions. At this point rehashing our stated positions repeatedly doesn't really add anything to the discussion and only comes across as arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from expressing any new ideas, just urging those who've had their say (including me), to step back and let the powers that be do their job.

I think these open discussions of forum policies are a healthy part of the growth process - as long as they remain civil and respectful. The needs of this forum, and the general LF community, are constantly evolving. It is a credit to those who manage and moderate this forum that they recongnize these changing needs and are willing to accomodate such changes by openly discussing forum policies and potential policy changes. Whatever their decision in this matter, I rest assured that it will be thoughful and will be made with the best interests of the LF community in mind.

Kerry

[Eric Biggerstaff]

By and large this has been a civil discussion on the issues and I have enjoyed it.

However, I think this issue has been covered and as it appears that a couple of posters are now making it personal I would suggest that this thread be locked before the flame wars begin.

I think everyone has provided the moderators a great deal of solid input and they can now make their decisions.

[Mick Noordewier]

The only problems come about when hasty, hostile, or off-subject posts, such as the recent ones by Don H. and Mick N., move in. In the case of this thread, the question is about finding a way to allow commercial announcements while keeping the forum noncommercial in nature. It the noncommercial essence of the thing that makes a free exchange of ideas and information possible. I would say about this forum: so far so good. I hope my suggestion, or a better suggestion by someone else, is adopted by the moderators.

Michael,
You may well think my post is off-subject, but your response suggests otherwise. I like your idea of segregating commercial posts. However, you state:



I think if you do not have to pay anything for something, it is free. Like broadcast TV. It may not be a charity, but it is free.


You state that you want the forum to remain non-commercial. If you don't agree that MC's posts are commercial, then you are misunderstanding a vein of business theory. Your solution simply moves one business (VC) to a segregated section, and allows the other business (MC) to use LFPF as the consumer base for its marketing arm.

And we go straight back to arguing about the original problem the next time a post for a "free" service shows up in a general section.

-Mick

[alec4444]

One aspect to consider might be the difference in talking about a product or service without directly linking to it or discussing a price. What irritated me about the f295 post I mentioned versus the VC posts was the fact that the f295 post said, "Here is the rates for our symposium and here is a link to sign up." Whereas the deleted VC post said, "I am listing a bunch of articles that appear in the next magazine." with no links to the magazine, no info on issue cost, etc.

To be fair, then, MC would have to abide by that same rules. "Here's a list of articles in our upcoming publication" with no link to the magazine and no talk about "register now". I'm with Kirk on the "free" thing. It's not really about whether something is free or not -- it's about keeping this non-profit forum from becoming a sales tool for for-profit businesses. The business model of the for-profit businesses should not be relevant.

--A

[Marko]

DISCLAIMERS:
(2). I DON'T KNOW STEVE SIMMONS, NOR DO I RITE FOR HIS MAGAZINE

Hey Brian,

Your spelling says that perhaps you should write for them... :D

DISCLAIMER:

1) THIS IS ALSO A JOKE!
2) I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH VC MAG
3) THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION

[Michael Alpert]

Mick,

I'll respond to you once and not more. Of course each magazine in question is a commercial business. With that said, if a product is provided without charge to the consumer, it is "free." Like weekly newspapers that are given away. The fact that the product is given away and paid for by advertisers has nothing to do with the legal status of the business. Both periodicals are commerical businesses.

I suggested that each periodical be treated the same on this forum, which is what both publishers have also suggested. There really is no disagreement between them on this point.

If we want to, we can see this discussion as an opportunity for the forum to refine its policy. Let's stay on subject.

[MJSfoto1956]

To be fair, then, MC would have to abide by that same rules. "Here's a list of articles in our upcoming publication" with no link to the magazine and no talk about "register now". I'm with Kirk on the "free" thing. It's not really about whether something is free or not -- it's about keeping this non-profit forum from becoming a sales tool for for-profit businesses. The business model of the for-profit businesses should not be relevant.

I'm willing to abide by that.
(I still think Steve's post should not have been deleted).
(and I think Steve should have waited until his mag was shipping to publish the TOC and none of this would have happened).

However, we do need to discuss the following:
Pretty much 100% of the photographers on this forum have links to their website(s) where they actively sell prints and/or services. The fact that they only make $1000 per year doesn't disqualify them from "being for-profit" in nature. The reality is this: everything on the web has some degree of comercialism -- it is a continuum. We as a forum simply need to decide to what degree. If MC loses money for the next three years (which is what we expect) but a photographer with links to his photos or workshops or equipment for sale makes tens of thousands of dollars, then who of the two is more "commerical" in nature? Should said photographer be allowed free reign? While the money-losing venture is bound by the same rules as the money-making ventures? Would it REALLY make a difference if MC or VC were a non-profit? (this is easy to do and wouldn't change a thing other than we would be then able to toot our horn and say "hey! we are a non-profit -- so give us a better break than a for-profit organization")

This has been an interesting discussion. There are few, if any pure "non commercial" parties on this forum. Everybody has something to sell. Everyone has an alterior motive. Including pretty much everyone who has posted to this thread.

So how do we solve this?

I'd be willing to have a sticky thread in the Announcment section called "MAGNAchrom Latest Issue" where we could continue to post the new TOC of the current shipping issue and members could add to the thread or skip it altogether. VC and all other publications would be bound to do the same.

As for individuals promoting their favorite commercial enterprise through (obvious) subversive postings, I'm not sure what to suggest here. Clearly they are trying to do an end-around, but I don't see a viable solution other than to allow the moderators to use their subjective reasoning to determine what is best for the forum.

I would also be wiling to officially support this forum as I'm sure VC would. Much like the way APUG does it either with banner ads or a sponsorship section. Basically, it would mean LF forum getting in bed with the devil.

How would people feel about that?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't know about making a "sticky" threads for this purpose, since that means that the commercial content always stays at the top of the list, but I think it's a good idea, if there are to be commercial posts, that they be restricted to a single thread for each enterprise, so that the advertisers may continue to update that thread, but may not post a new thread for every update.

[sanking]

I suggested that each periodical be treated the same on this forum, which is what both publishers have also suggested. There really is no disagreement between them on this point.



Based only on the issue at hand, i.e. posting TOC of upcoming issues, I agree that VC and MC should be treated equally.

I don't agree, however, that the two magazines, should be treated equally on this site in every respect . Even though both are clearly commercial, one is free to subscribers, and the other is not. As QT wrote earlier, "The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site." Google and Photoshop are both commercial but one I have to pay for and the other is free. That is a difference to me of some distinction.

You complain about the personal nature of some comments. The fact of the matter is that Steve Simmons does have a long history of using the free forums to advertise and create publicity for his magazine. I saw this on the old rec-photo groups, saw it on APUG when he was there, and have seen it here. The moderators here, at least some of them, seem aware of that history.

Sandy King

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

However, we do need to discuss the following:
Pretty much 100&#37; of the photographers on this forum have links to their website(s) where they actively sell prints and/or services. The fact that they only make $1000 per year doesn't disqualify them from "being for-profit" in nature.

OK, I'm a bad boy. I urged others to call a cease fire and here I am posting again an hour later (Bad Kerry, no biscuit).

Michael,

This is not part of this issue and discussing it here only serves to muddy the waters. Three or four line .sig files (like yours, for example) have always been permitted here - and on other non-commercial forums dating back to way before Al Gore (or anyone else) invented the internet. They go way back to the usenet newsgroups (and probably arpanet before that). They were permitted in the original lusenet (based the usenet model) version of this forum hosted on greenspun.com and are clearly permitted - even encouraged - in this forum.

At the very least, they clearly identify the poster's affiliations so others reading their posts know who they are and what entities, if any, they represent. A .sig file is not an advertisement, it is more like a business card. They are permitted here whether the poster is an individual photographer, a magazine publisher, a manufacturer's rep or a product distributor. They are a totally separate issue from what is being discussed in this thread and are already permitted under the current forum guidelines.

Kerry

[roteague]

Both should be treated equally and both should be allowed to announce upcoming issues - which a lot of times, contains either articles by or about members of our community, or articles about our craft. VCs recent listings of LF film is one example. They both provide a service to our community.

[alec4444]

Pretty much 100&#37; of the photographers on this forum have links to their website(s) where they actively sell prints and/or services. The fact that they only make $1000 per year doesn't disqualify them from "being for-profit" in nature.

That is true. And again I think the distinction is this: You can talk about your photos, attach your photos, etc but you can't say "buy it here" or post prices. And yes, I think the "I just re-did my site, what do you think?" posts are annoying and don't belong (or belong to a place explicitly for that purpose).



Would it REALLY make a difference if MC or VC were a non-profit? (this is easy to do and wouldn't change a thing other than we would be then able to toot our horn and say "hey! we are a non-profit -- so give us a better break than a for-profit organization")

Actually, I've always felt that if one wanted to get rich the way to do it is via a non-profit organization. But for this purpose, yes, I would think that would make a difference and that non-profits would be excluded from this policy. I don't know of any Large Format non-profit groups, so it's tough for me to really imagine that.

I find your suggestions all appealing with the exception of the banner ads. That's one reason (among many, admittedly) that I'm here and not on photo.something.

For individuals, I think a website link in their profile only is the way to go. That gives users a venue to finding their site if they seek it rather than having it plastered in posts or in "signatures" at the bottom of posts. OR a Personal Site Announcements thread separate from other things. But maybe I'm going too far.

--A

[Michael Alpert]

Sandy,

I think the question involves accommodating what both publishers are, in effect, requesting without compromising the forum. All of us want to have a place where we can freely exchange information and help each other. I think a corner of the forum can offer relevant commercial announcements on a one-time basis. There certainly is a history of aggressive self-serving behavior here (and elsewhere) that should be taken into account. The moderators have banned unruly members and have deleted over-the-top threads. I suggest that, if my or a similiar suggestion is adopted, everyone be put on notice that disregarding the limitation on new-product announcements will have consequences.

[Pete Watkins]

I've got to admit that I've missed some of these posts. I've never been tempted by MC and as I stated yesterday I know nothing about it, BUT unlike other forum users who contribute posts that actually offer help and advice to other members all Steve Simmons ever seems to do is promote View Camera Magazine. Real practical help always seems to involve a reference to an item in the magazine somtime in the distant past. I assume that Steve has rether a lot of old issues that need shifting. As I've stated before I bought one copy from Robert White and decided that it was too heavily biased towards digital. Just out of interest, why did Robert White actually decide to stop stocking the magazine?
QT keep up the good work.
Pete.

[roteague]

BUT unlike other forum users who contribute posts that actually offer help and advice to other members all Steve Simmons ever seems to do is promote View Camera Magazine.

Perhaps, if people didn't keep hammering on the guy, he might be willing to offer more advice or just contribute more. Keep in mind, I don't know Steve, I've never met him, I've just seen the way he has been treated here and at APUG.

[Pete Watkins]

Oh my goodness, APUG as well then. No smoke without fire, is there?
Pete.

[MJSfoto1956]

I've just seen the way he has been treated here and at APUG.

And we all know how civil and kind and open-minded some of the folks over at APUG are! ;)

[neil poulsen]

We would like to thank everyone for their input and suggestions.