I don’t feel knowing how many views you get is a sign of a popularity contest. Any poster should have a right to know how much his image is seen. That’s basic. I haven’t seen a photography site that doesn’t provide that statistic. Moralizing the display of information is the wrong thing to do.
I adamantly disagree with this, views is absolutely correlated with popularity, and the fact that every other photo sharing site has this is all the more reason to hide this. The last thing I want is for NPN to be like every other photo sharing site that bases everything on popularity. Things were different when NPN started and there were no other photo sharing sites, back then it was a good thing to promote the members work, but things have changed. 500px is a great example of how basing photography on popularity went awry, every photo had to be bigger and better, more dramatic, more compositing, more light bleed to catch attention. I do not want this here. I want to see authentic photos that actually mean something to people, not because they will be successful on social media. I have turned off the views column and will not be bringing it back.
I think it would be a shame to do away with the number of views attributed to a picture. Certain photographers will always garner more attention than others not just because they might be better, but also because they place more comments, worthwhile or otherwise. A cynic might suspect that this could be because praised heaped upon equals praise returned. I would argue therefore that if you really wanted to do away with something meaningless then there is no reason to indicate the number of comments attributed to a post.
To the point. I have three reasons for wanting to know how many times my images are viewed
Whether a critique, positive or negative is forthcoming or not, at least by opening that image I can reasonably assume the thumbnail has at least piqued enough interest in that viewer to spend time looking at the larger version amongst the many other thumbnails there.
It is of no interest to me what-so-ever whether Joe Bloggs has received 5000 views or 5050 views what concerns me is how many views I have got compared with other images in my collection of pictures that is how I determine the relevance of my pictures.
I use the information I collate from image views of my own pictures as a relatively unbiased way of garnering the popularity of my own images amongst all the others in my collection and I use that information in a professional capacity (an inexpensive poll of the work I produce), to help me select the pictures for calendars and cards that I produce. I could do this from any large forum site, 500px, Flickr, but I choose NPN and one other site because I very much respect the views of photographers on these sites.
Image views are important I would be sorry to see them go.
Well, I have been away too long, and I’m missing all the fun, . One thing for sure, if you want to start a lively discussion, just change something. We are such creatures of habit, are we not? But I digress. Tonight was my first time to peruse the new NPN. And yes, it is very different, but one thing I’ve learned in life is that things change.
And welcome to the new owners. Obviously, they have a new vision for NPN, a new direction, and I for one welcome that. Not because I think there was anything particularly “wrong” with the original site, but I see this as a new beginning, and something to inspire my creativity again, as I had fallen in somewhat of a rut.
Now, as to the two types of galleries, if I may suggest, we need to perhaps clarify what a critique is. Webster defines it as an act of criticism or to examine critically. The Oxford dictionary defines is as a detailed analysis or assessment of something. Then there is the closely related word criticism. This generally means the act of expressing disapproval and the act of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing. So I certainly see the value of having a gallery reserved for critiquing, where one can post a photo for the purpose of receiving comments and suggestions from fellow photographers for ways to perhaps make the photo more technically sound or to have more impact, etc. Of course, the person who took the photo is free to assimilate the suggestions or completely ignore them. Its an exchange of ideas, a discussion that hopefully involves some learning for all .
On the other hand, I also see the value of having a regular gallery for people to just showcase their photography. They are not looking to “change” anything, but rather the photo is as they want to be. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if they do not wish to have any comments at all, they should simply state that. Otherwise, people are free to leave positive comments.
To summarize, it appears to me that the critique gallery is for exactly what it says, to receive a critique of your work. Whereas, the regular gallery is for sharing images, and if I view a photo there that moves me or greatly impacts me, or I find the technical aspects of the photo amazing, I am free to express that.
So, I am looking forward to getting re-involved in this site. There will be some growing pains, and some kinks that need to be worked out. There always are whenever change occurs, but I am confident that we have the wherewithal to overcome them and make NPN a vibrant community of sharing and learning.
So can I just speak from the point of view of a member who got critiques for several years and who did not have any kind of name in photography? Because if you had or have a name in photography I don’t think you saw the whole picture, and if you didn’t get critiques for years (as in you left because you didn’t like them) I don’t think you saw the whole picture.
I begged for critiques. My response to critiques was overwhelmingly accepting and positive. I edited virtually every image based on the critiques. There are members now who beg for critiques. But even for those of us who beg for critiques, do you know what? Sometimes it becomes really hard to post anything at all. Then the longer you go without posting the easier it is not to post. It would have been so nice to just be able to post an image once in a while just to share it.
If you have a name in photography you rarely got any critiques unless you consider positive comments critiques (I really don’t). Carefully consider the definitions of critique that Philip Southard posted just above and the relationship of critique with criticism. If you got primarily positive comments, I’m not sure you really have a horse in this race.
Based on my experience as one who received a few years’ worth of critiques I fully agree with and appreciate having a critique gallery and a non-critique gallery.
My two cents
I continue to learn how to use the site and appreciate how much work is being put into it. It seems like some people are returning and that is really super.
I do agree with Ian and others about the value of “views”. Yes to some extent it is a “popularity” contest but it does have some merit as to how compelling an image might be as opposed to ones other images, which is my standard. I would like to see that kept, even if it is kept as a view for members only.
I also still have a problem deciding on whether to place an image in a critique or non critique gallery. Sometimes I might put one in the non critique gallery when it really belongs in the critique gallery. I just don’t know that. I’m pretty sure I am not alone in thinking a photo is perfect , only to find out it has flaws. We all see through a colored lens. I am not sure what the solution is but it is a problem for people like me. I could decide to stick all my photos in a critique gallery but then would not have the exposure that the non critique gallery provides. So that is the problem as I see it.
Best to all
Thank you all for the feedback, please see my response in this post.
It’s a welcome change David, Thank you!