> -----Original Message----- > From: photoblogs@googlegroups.com [mailto:photoblogs@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Brandon Stone > Sent: September 13, 2006 8:10 PM > To: photoblogs@googlegroups.com > Subject: [photoblogs-discuss] Re: Hall of Fame
> How about "The Nobel Peace Prize." For whatever reason I think that has a > nice ring to it.
I think it's a great idea, and though I am all for equal opportunity photoblogging, there are some photoblogs that are *subjectively* better than others, and definitely some *objectively* that are most influential.
I think some photoblogs are quite deserving of the "attaboy gold medal certificicate." If a blog has 3,000-4,000 hits every day, I'd say it's pretty influential. If it is featured in the NY Times, Time magazine, or other major news publication, it's influential.
And in the photoblogging realm, at least, certain blogs *are* famous. Nothing at all wrong with the name!
It's worth mentioning, I think, that the HOF sites aren't selected in any particular order of rank. The daily picks are made from a pool of pre-selected sites without regard to any kind of ranking.
"If a blog has 3,000-4,000 hits every day, I'd say it's pretty influential."
It's also true that sites with a lot less than that can be infuential. Making Happy (http://www.makinghappy.com/) for example. I don't know how many hits the site gets but it's a very infuential site, especially amongst film and toy camera users, and one of the most established sites around. It's like cinema, some of the most influential films ever made haven't been seen by relatively many people, but the right people saw them and, whether we know it or not, popularised the ideas contained in those films.
All in my opinon of course, I have no influence over which sites are selected, neither does Brandon really.
Thank you for pointing that out Miles. I have made a point over the time I have been actively photoblogging to proactively search out the "road less traveled." There are totally amazing sites, and totally amazing people in this community. I fear too many of us limit our daily fare to the "big" sites (DDOI has nearly 10,000 Blogline subscribers!! Yes, I am one of them). There is such diversity of photographic style, of subjects, of prose, of poetry, ... well, a diversity of everything.
While I stand little chance of ever getting to know the Sams or Kathleens from the 3-4000 hits per day sites; but I can and do come to know the Kims, the David and Sues, the Lynns, the Anas ...; and personally I feel all the better for that. If this HOF can recognize that level of "influence" then I will say "ok!"
Even scarier, never visiting the site but knowing what the acronym stands for. Which has me wondering what the purpose of a "hall of fame" is about in the first place - if it is links to sites that are already well travelled ...
-Anne
On 9/14/06, forgingahead <rfo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> Thank you for pointing that out Miles. I have made a point over the > time I have been actively photoblogging to proactively search out the > "road less traveled." There are totally amazing sites, and totally > amazing people in this community. I fear too many of us limit our daily > fare to the "big" sites (DDOI has nearly 10,000 Blogline subscribers!! > Yes, I am one of them). There is such diversity of photographic style, > of subjects, of prose, of poetry, ... well, a diversity of everything.
> While I stand little chance of ever getting to know the Sams or > Kathleens from the 3-4000 hits per day sites; but I can and do come to > know the Kims, the David and Sues, the Lynns, the Anas ...; and > personally I feel all the better for that. If this HOF can recognize > that level of "influence" then I will say "ok!"
And I am proud to say that I am among that 18 Andy!
Not to change the subject, but I wonder how people handle hit rates above a few hundred a day. I hit a high last winter of about 300 or so. Because I try to respond to all comments it made life very busy for a while as I was averaging more than 20 comments per post. It becomes a mixed blessing. I loved the popularity and recognition, but it was becoming a lot like a real job to maintain my own standards for response. I basically understand now that my site is a 50-70 hit per day, 6-10 comments per post type of site -- and that feels comfortable to me. I just shake my head at those that are getting even 500, let alone more than 10,000! It would change my style massively (not that I have to worry about it).
I know what you mean. I also reply to all posts and if you get a heavily commented on photo it can be a mixed blessing! I always think that if people take the time to look and comment the least I can do is say thanks. I assume that those sites where they get 40 or 50 comments a day just don't reply. I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with that.
A bit like yourself though I'm sure it will never be a problem!
----- Original Message ----- From: forgingahead To: Photoblogs Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:58 AM Subject: [photoblogs-discuss] Re: Hall of Fame
And I am proud to say that I am among that 18 Andy!
Not to change the subject, but I wonder how people handle hit rates above a few hundred a day. I hit a high last winter of about 300 or so. Because I try to respond to all comments it made life very busy for a while as I was averaging more than 20 comments per post. It becomes a mixed blessing. I loved the popularity and recognition, but it was becoming a lot like a real job to maintain my own standards for response. I basically understand now that my site is a 50-70 hit per day, 6-10 comments per post type of site -- and that feels comfortable to me. I just shake my head at those that are getting even 500, let alone more than 10,000! It would change my style massively (not that I have to worry about it).
On 9/15/06, Anne Seville <sacredc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DDOI has nearly 10,000 Blogline subscribers!!
> Even scarier, never visiting the site but knowing what the acronym stands > for. Which has me wondering what the purpose of a "hall of fame" is about in > the first place - if it is links to sites that are already well travelled > ...
I totally agree. There are really thousands of blogs who deserve to be in that "hall of fame", but who are not that well known (or obscure to say the least). Each blog which is now featured is practically known to everyone, so what's the point for doing it anyway.
I would suggest that the "hall" would be used to give lesser known photoblogs a chance to shine. Photoblogs who like get a few visitors daily, but who stand out in excellence.
... and then there are sites like mine, who's photography is not as good as the DDOI's of the net but never-the-less not "horrible" either who get maybe 10 or 15 hits a day. I suspect the reason is that I'm not out there pounding the cyber pavement seeking out new sites and leaving comments hither, thither and yon .... Even my old (read year one site) only received maybe 50 to 75 hits a day ....
I guess that puts me in the category of doing this for the love of it and for myself, because .... otherwise keeping a dozen people happy each day sounds kinda .... sick?
"mailto:photoblogs@googlegroups.com"mailto:photoblogs@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of forgingahead Sent: September 15, 2006 7:59 AM To: Photoblogs Subject: [photoblogs-discuss] Re: Hall of Fame
Not to change the subject, but I wonder how people handle hit rates above a few hundred a day.
On 9/15/06, lynn rockwell <lynnrockw...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ... and then there are sites like mine, who's photography is not as good as > the DDOI's of the net but never-the-less not "horrible" either who get maybe > 10 or 15 hits a day. I suspect the reason is that I'm not out there pounding > the cyber pavement seeking out new sites and leaving comments hither, > thither and yon .... Even my old (read year one site) only received maybe 50 > to 75 hits a day ....
> I guess that puts me in the category of doing this for the love of it and > for myself, because .... otherwise keeping a dozen people happy each day > sounds kinda .... sick?
> Ditto! My "daily hits" rate is much lower. I get an average of 4 or 5 visitors daily (yes, that low), but if you compare that to the total amount of pageviews I receive (+100 daily), I think that people somehow seem to like what I'm doing, otherwise you wont go diggin' in the archives that deep. I'm doing this because I love photography, even if it's far from perfect.
On 9/15/06, Anne Seville <sacredc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DDOI has nearly 10,000 Blogline subscribers!!
> Even scarier, never visiting the site but knowing what the acronym stands > for. Which has me wondering what the purpose of a "hall of fame" is about in > the first place - if it is links to sites that are already well travelled
I think this might have been a point that was lost higher up in the thread, so I just want to touch on it again... Once we have a large enough number of Hall of Fame members, I'll create an option where you can quickly *filter out* the hall of fame members from the normal lists on Photoblogs.org. So, you can quickly switch back and forth between having all the Hall of Fame sites removed or intermingled in results.
So, for those of us who enjoy exploring the path less traveled, this will help us to find it.
The Hall of Fame does two major things:
1) It give newbies a really easy list of outstanding sites to browse through... This allows them to quickly get up to speed on what many of us already know. 2) It helps the experienced among us to filter out the well-known sites in order to find different ones. (I just haven't made this option available yet, since we only have a handful of Hall of Fame sites.)
It's all about giving people options to find what they want. Every user of Photoblogs.org is looking at things from their own unique perspective and I just want to be sensitive to that.
> On 9/15/06, Anne Seville <sacredc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> DDOI has nearly 10,000 Blogline subscribers!!
>> Even scarier, never visiting the site but knowing what the acronym >> stands >> for. Which has me wondering what the purpose of a "hall of fame" is >> about in >> the first place - if it is links to sites that are already well >> travelled
> I think this might have been a point that was lost higher up in the > thread, so I just want to touch on it again... Once we have a large > enough number of Hall of Fame members, I'll create an option where you > can quickly *filter out* the hall of fame members from the normal > lists on Photoblogs.org. So, you can quickly switch back and forth > between having all the Hall of Fame sites removed or intermingled in > results.
> So, for those of us who enjoy exploring the path less traveled, this > will help us to find it.
> The Hall of Fame does two major things:
> 1) It give newbies a really easy list of outstanding sites to browse > through... This allows them to quickly get up to speed on what many > of us already know. > 2) It helps the experienced among us to filter out the well-known > sites in order to find different ones. (I just haven't made this > option available yet, since we only have a handful of Hall of Fame > sites.)
> It's all about giving people options to find what they want. Every > user of Photoblogs.org is looking at things from their own unique > perspective and I just want to be sensitive to that.
Wim Bollen wrote: > I would suggest that the "hall" would be used to give lesser known > photoblogs a chance to shine. Photoblogs who like get a few visitors > daily, but who stand out in excellence.
Further to what Brandon replied on this already it's worth noting that photoblogs.org is all about improving the way people browse and discover photoblogs through the directory. There are already several ways to discover new sites and the 'hot' list is, I think, especially effective at highlighting sites that haven't been popular, or are new, but are 'discovered' by other users. No site stays on the hot list for very long because of the weighting algorythm that's applied to results there.
Also, take a look at the photoblogs.org wiki (http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Roadmap). There are many ideas there most of which are designed to help users browse through sites more effectively.
The intention of the Hall of Fame *is* to recognise sites that are established and well regarded. There is a demand for that and this is the response. I think it's a better solution than the various ranking sites that have popped up which are basically popularity contests open to manipulation.
For what you're talking about there are several upcoming features that will hopefully help, including an 'Editor's Choice' feature which will focus on profiling excellent and lesser known photobloggers. Besides that there are more features in the pipeline and I think, other than an interview feature, they're all focused on helping users browse their bookmarks effectively through combining and manipulating RSS feeds and discovering new sites.
As always the forum is open to ideas and the wiki is open for additions.
There's something I really like about the HOF concept. I echo much of what's been said around highlighting outstanding sites for both "newbies" and "fogies". I feel this continues building on the community aspect of photoblogs.org, which I've greatly appreciated over the past couple years.
However, as some have voiced, there might be a perception out there the "Hall of Fame" acts as a bit of a pedestal, potentially creating, albeit a perception, that some are classed higher than others.
In a community, none are really above others. However, there are some that act as "hubs" or "social centres" to the community. Thus far, I find that the sites chosen to join the HOF are just that - hubs and social centres to the photoblogging community.
Right, all this to say, there might be an interesting way of relabelling "Hall of Fame" to more truly reflect their place/purpose in the photoblogging community.
Cheers, Dan
------------ Daniel Séguin genestho.ca :: make it happen
Daniel Seguin wrote: > However, as some have voiced, there might be a perception out there the > "Hall of Fame" acts as a bit of a pedestal, potentially creating, > albeit a perception, that some are classed higher than others.
If anyone has a better phrase I'm sure it would be considered. Whatever we choose though I think there will always be a perception problem for some people.
As I mentioned above it's more like a slap on the back with an "attaboy" then a gold medal, but that's too colloquial of a way to express it.
Dare I ask, ... how does one know / find out how many people have a bloglines feed to one's photoblog .... ? I not sure I'm ready for this, ... I know of one that I have ... thanks Bob !!! hahahaha.
Lynn
_____
From: photoblogs@googlegroups.com [mailto:photoblogs@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tamara Nicol Sent: September 15, 2006 11:28 AM To: photoblogs@googlegroups.com Subject: [photoblogs-discuss] Re: Hall of Fame
Now you have 22, me being the newest subscriber. :)
Lynn, When you access one of your subscribed sites it tells you how many subscribers there are and if you click on that number it lists the "Public" subscriptions. You have 5 subscribers, two of whom are public. So if you want to challenge Sam, you better stop playing games and get busy!!! Ha! Bob
