I must second what Stan said. photo.net is currently the only site that PDMLers use whose links automatically go onto my "maybe later" list.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Stan Halpin <s...@stans-photography.info> wrote: > Bob W said: >> I pay for a website and it does not thrust ads in people's faces just >> because they haven't also subscribed. I think it's rude of people to use >> websites that do that, and photo.net et al should have the decency not to >> serve ads at all through subscribers' pages. > > Dan, you say: >> ... I just >> pointed out that "free" websites do not exist. If you are not paying >> for the service, the website is selling you to advertisers in order to >> pay the costs of running the "free" websitre... > > I think you misunderstand Bob's point, Dan. There is a very strange mixing of > apples and oranges in what you say. The problem is that there are two > different kinds of users for photo-viewing (or music-listening) sites. There > are users who store stuff on a site for others to look at (listen to, > whatever). And there are users who come and view/listen or otherwise enjoy > the stored goodies. Some sites charge people to store stuff, some sites > charge viewers/listeners to view/hear the stored stuff. photonet apparently > does both. It charges you to use the site to store stuff, and then it charges > me (by imposing ads on me) to look at the stuff you've stored. The site I use > to store stuff charges me; I would drop them in a heartbeat if they started > to charge people to look at my stuff (or if they started imposing ads on my > viewers, which amounts to the same thing.) I bear the cost of storing/hosting > my photos and I don't expect others to then have to "pay" to view the hosted > images. > > So, photonet has its business model which involves getting you to pay them > for the privilege of them using your photos to draw me to the site so they > can push ads in my face and make money if I were to click-through to an > advertiser. That is ok, I can ignore the ads. If the ads (or other photonet > slowness) delays loading a requested photo for any appreciable time, (i.e., > 1-2 sec) that is ok also - I just click Close and go on with my life. I have > had enough fail-to-load-promptly experiences with the photonet site that I > will usually avoid even clicking on a link that will take me there. If I > needed to go to the site to see shots of the local Rotary Club picnic, I > would probably do so and not give the ads and delays a second thought. But if > I have no need to go to the site other than to view and maybe comment on > someone's photo, then I'll usually instead view and comment on someone else's > photo which is stored on a more accessible site. > > stan > > On Jun 23, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > >> Bob: >> >> I did not suggest that you should subscribe to Photo.net. I just >> pointed out that "free" websites do not exist. If you are not paying >> for the service, the website is selling you to advertisers in order to >> pay the costs of running the "free" websitre. >> >> I store thousands of image on Photo.Net for the Rotary Groups I work >> with, for a local attorneys group, and for church and civic >> activities.. I have done this for several years now, giving out the >> link to Photo.Net. The people who use those images and download them >> are, for the most part, far less sophisticated than the member of PDML >> in the use of computers. I have received many compliments and many >> expressions of thanks, but none of those users have ever had any >> problems accessing the images or complained about the ads. The local >> newspaper have also selected and downloaded, with my permission, >> images I posted on the site. The ads are a very minor inconvenience, >> and easily handled by almost everyone, except for a few here. I guess >> your standards are higher, but if you are unable to look at my images >> because of your dislike of Photo.Net, I guess I will have to live with >> that. >> >> Dan Matyola >> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Bob W <p...@web-options.com> wrote: >>> On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:36, "Daniel J. Matyola" <danmaty...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sorry if you find the ads on Photo.Net such a problem. >>>> >>>> Not all services are equal. The flexibility of Photo.Net makes it >>>> worth the minor convenience of the ads, in my view. One click, and >>>> they are gone. I prefer that to the strange interface used by most of >>>> the alternatives. Photo.Net offers a lot of storage, a lot of >>>> flexibility, and ease of use. Millions of visitors manage to visit >>>> the site and look ate the images despite the minor inconvenience of >>>> the ads. >>>> >>> >>> One click and I'm gone. >>> >>> It's up to you if you want your convenience to be at the expense of your >>> potential viewers, but I think that's a lousy attitude. >>> >>> You've suggested that we should subscribe to photo.net if we don't want to >>> see ads. Do you seriously think people are going to subscribe to every >>> website that shows annoying ads annoyingly? Do you subscribe to them all? >>> No, people are just going to leave those sites. One of the basic rules of >>> web design is don't piss off your customers. >>> >>> As for your millions of visitors, if you scale up the number of people on >>> this list who've complained a great many times about photo.net you may get >>> some sense of how much annoyance those ads cause to people. And if you >>> scale up similarly the number of people on this list who use that 'one >>> click' to leave your site rather than look at your pictures when an ad gets >>> in the way, you'll get some idea of how many viewers photo.net is driving >>> away. >>> >>> B >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dan Matyola >>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Bob W <p...@web-options.com> wrote: >>>>> On 23 Jun 2013, at 19:58, "Daniel J. Matyola" <danmaty...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't see the ads, probabley because I subscribe to Photo.Net. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember, if you don't pay for a service, you are the product being sold. >>>>> >>>>> You are not obliged to subscribe to a service that uses ads. I pay for a >>>>> website and it does not thrust ads in people's faces just because they >>>>> haven't also subscribed. I think it's rude of people to use websites that >>>>> do that, and photo.net et al should have the decency not to serve ads at >>>>> all through subscribers' pages. >>>>> >>>>> If I were you I'd be very unhappy about that because you're paying >>>>> photo.net to host your pictures, yet their stupid ads are driving viewers >>>>> away from them, and nobody gains. >>>>> >>>>> B >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
