Re: Critical remarks about onexposure.net

So Jacob... how can i get in onexposure.net !!

Should i send you some of my pictures and you tell if i can
enter this 
photoglob ??

Thanks, Paula.


>From: jajo <m.crenshawgmail.com>
>Reply-To: photoblogsgooglegroups.com
>To: Photoblogs <photoblogsgooglegroups.com>
>Subject: [photoblogs-discuss] Re: Critical remarks about
onexposure.net
>Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:19:58 -0700
>
>
>Hi!
>
>My name is Jacob and I am one of the founders of
onexposure.net. I
>just wanted to leave a reply in this thread, to answer
some questions
>raised and fill some gaps in the story told here.
>
>First of all, for those who are unfamiliar with
onexposure.net:
>
>* Onexposure.net is a photo community where
photographers upload their
>best work . A group of screeners will look at every
photo uploaded
>publish only those who fit for the site. Photos that
don't fit will be
>rejected, and there are several ways within the site to
get critique
>and help to better understand why. The selection of
photos is based on
>evaluating originality, message, mood, aesthetics and
technical
>quality.
>* Onexposure.net is to be compared with a photo magazine
rather than
>flickr, blog or any other site where you can store your
photos. This
>is not the place for common photos of pets or boring
vacation shots.
>This is a place for special shots.
>* Onexposure.net relies on the philosophy of both giving
and taking.
>Giving feedback, receiving feedback. Showing photos,
viewing others
>photos. The screeners will spend quite a lot of time
looking at photos
>uploaded (on average 10 minutes per photo). Screeners
often give
>detailed feedback both on published shots, and photos
that didn't make
>it all the way. All this is completely free and we don't
make a cent
>on running this completely ad-free homepage. We pay big
bills for
>internet and server every month. What we request in
return from our
>users is the right to show photos uploaded.
>
>About deleting photos:
>
>* If we deleted all photos by a photographer, many hours
of unpaid
>work by screeners and other members (giving critique and
commenting
>photos) would be gone. This is not very respectful for
the site crew,
>or other members. It also goes against our strive to
create a stable
>environment, where photos are not disappearing all of a
sudden. In
>short - we don't want our users to feel that it is a
waste to spend
>time giving feedback. We also want to make the photos
immortal - like
>in a photo paper magazine - where photos just don't
disappear for no
>reason.
>* We delete a photo (or a few photos) if the
photographer has a good
>reason for it. We want people to enjoy the site and feel
comfortable
>that we will listen to their requests.
>* Some photographers wants to have all their photos
published. Once
>they have a rejection, they demand that we change or
decision, or they
>threat to leave the site and demand all photos to be
deleted. This is
>a scenario that goes against the whole purpose of a site
where
>everybody is judged equally (even the screeners
themselves!).
>* Jens post makes it sound like we are trying to hide
the fact that we
>don't delete photos without a good reason. This is not
at all right.
>We display information about this on at least three
places: 1) When
>you register. 2) In the web forums. 3) When you upload a
photo.
>* We have well over 1000 users and more than 500 with
one photo or
>more published. Most people have no problem at all with
the fact that
>we don't delete photos since they enjoy our site and
joined it because
>they like what we do and how we do it.
>* About the user agreement - ndiginiz is right that it
has changed.
>Originally, the agreement said: "By registering,
you agree that your
>personal information is stored in our database and that
your uploaded
>pictures will be displayed on onexposure.net. This
information will
>not be shared with anyone outside of
onexposure.net". This means
>exactly the same - but the new user agreement is clearer
on the point
>that we don't delete photos. Of course, the new user
agreement only
>applies to users who registered after the change. In our
user table,
>we save the complete agreement that each user accepted,
to make sure
>we can clarify exactly what was accepted for a certain
user.
>
>About changing personal info or canceling membership:
>
>* Of course we allow users to cancel their membership if
they like. We
>will then make sure they are no longer visible in the
list of
>photographers, their profiles will clearly show that
they are no
>longer a member of the site and comments can no longer
be written on
>photos.
>* Changing personal info, like the photographer name, is
done by
>contacting the site crew and is usually fixed within one
hour.
>
>About  "strange moderating actions in the
forum":
>
>* Like every serious forum, we remove posts being
off-topic or of low
>value for the majority of the users. Jens posted some
poor-written
>nonconstructive critique in a place where it didn't
belong, without
>doing the most logic thing - bringing up his issues with
the site crew
>first by e-mail. These posts were removed to keep the
quality in the
>forum.
>
>Why did Jens get angry then?
>
>* We added a "member screening" feature to the
screening process. It
>works like this: 1) Someone uploads a photo. 2) The
screeners will
>look at it and choose either to publish it directly, not
publish it
>(reject it) or send it to other screeners for their
input. 3) If sent
>to other screeners and the screeners cannot decide
whether to publish
>it or not, it can be added to the "member
screening" where all of our
>users with at least 2 photos published can affect the
decision. If the
>member votes against publishing, a reason for this can
be selected.
>When a photo has received 10 votes for or against
publishing, the
>screeners will get the photo back and in 99% of all
cases follow the
>outcome. This is a feature that strengthens the
community and makes it
>more alive. It is very popular, and makes the selection
of photos much
>broader than what the screeners "like" or
"dislike".
>* Jens has uploaded 35 photos to onexposure.net. 34 of
them has been
>published, because they were very good. One day, he
uploaded a shot
>that, in our eyes, was quite poor. It was rejected, and
Jens appealed
>our decision. Instead of just rejecting the appeal, we
decided to give
>it a second chance by putting it in member screening.
100% of the
>votes was against publishing. We had no other
alternative than to
>reject the appeal. Not only did Jens receive his first
rejection, he
>was also humiliated by the fact that we gave the power
to our members.
>This is, from what I can understand, the number 1 reason
why he chose
>to leave the site. We have probably spent 5 hours or
more with Jens
>photos. He has received lots of comments and feedback
from other
>members. All is now to be deleted, just because we
didn't publish the
>photo. Is this fair?
>* It almost sounds like Jens didn't come to Onexposure
for the give-
>and-take experience. He came to be exposed. When we
tried to be fair
>against other members and rejected the photo that didn't
meet our
>requirements, he no longer had the control himself and
our site was
>not interesting anymore. Demanding all the work of the
community on
>his photos to be deleted is like spitting on the
community. We respect
>that Jens left, but in return we would have appreciated
that the
>photos uploaded could still be there - as a token of
appreciation of
>what we have done for free. In respect of the work by
the community.
>Still, it is free advertisement and the photos will not
be harmed by
>being there. People will find them and be amazed by
them, and find his
>homepage. (Jens: I will immediately restore the URL to
your homepage
>in your deactivated profile on onexposure!).
>
>In the end, all we want is to provide a unique community
with screened
>content, with as much influence by the members as
possible. We want to
>create a feeling of stability - photos published will
remain published
>unless there are good reasons for taking them down. A
drama, like the
>one directed by Jens, is not a reason good enough in our
eyes. Any
>member uploading to onexposure should think of it like
sending a bunch
>of photos to a photo magazine - only the best will be
published, and
>they will remain published. In return, our users will
take part in
>something that is growing fast with new exciting
features every month
>and have lots of fun with other photographers from all
over the world,
>sharing experiences in photo comments, forums and
galleries.
>
>My last words: Onexposure is a very unique community. A
give-and-take
>community. But like any other homepage, what decides if
it is "good"
>or "bad" is what you are looking for. The good
thing with this thread
>is that the information about our site will be even
clearer. Those who
>share Jens opinion have been warned. The rest have
something quite
>spectacular to look forward to. I can only hope
everybody makes up
>their mind about onexposure.net themselves instead of
letting this one-
>sided story ruin what might be the best page you ever
visited.
>
>Thanks for reading to the end.
>
>/ Jacob
>
>
>
>On May 21, 8:54 pm, Jens <j...look-s.de> wrote:
> > Hello together. Some of you may already know this
site and I also know
> > that some have uploaded a few photos there. I also
liked the idea of
> > the site, because the pictures only screened
pictures will be accepted
> > for publication. So I have contributed with a lot
of  pictures there.
> > After some time the owners of this site
established an additional
> > membervote instead of the normal screening which
is used if the
> > screeners refuse to make a final decision and this
was ecactly one
> > thing I did not want when I decided to upload my
pictures there.
> > Additionally there were some strange
"moderating" actions in the forum
> > which I found not ok.
> > So I decided to leave Onexposure and asked the
owners several times to
> > delete my content and my name.
> > I was informed that my account is suspended and
that I am not able to
> > log in anymore but my pictures will not be deleted
because during
> > regestration I accepted the following paragraph:
> >
> > "By registering, you agree that every
uploaded photo and your personal
> > information will be stored in our database and
displayed on
> > onexposure.net and nowords.nu, if the site crew
decides to publish it.
> > Your personal information can not be changed or
removed, and your
> > uploaded pictures can not be deleted, without the
consent of the site
> > crew. Your email address will not be shared with
anyone except the
> > site crew."
> >
> > Well maybe they are right and I should have read
this stuff more
> > carefully (would you have expected this??) but in
the end I thought
> > for the other members of the group this could be
of interest ....;)
> > In the end uploading to OE is a marriage without a
possible divorce.
> >
> > Greetings!!
> >
> > Jens
>
>
>>

____________________________________________________________
_____
Mande torpedos SMS do seu messenger para o celular dos seus
amigos 
http://mobile.msn.com/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Photoblogs" group.
To post to this group, send email to photoblogsgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
photoblogs-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http:
//groups.google.com/group/photoblogs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi Paula.

Follow these steps;

    * First, register here: h
ttp://www.onexposure.net/index.php?action=register
    * Then, login.
    * You will now see that the links on the top of the page
has
changed. Click on "My pictures" to enter the
section where you can
upload pictures, view your queue of pictures, view not
published
pictures, view links to your pictures from external
webpages, view
latest comments on your pictures and more.
    * To upload, click "Upload pictures".
    * Upload your picture and wait. Screening can take time
depending
on how many photos that are ahead of you in queue. You can
always view
status of the pictures in queue from the "Upload
queue".
    * If you picture disappears from the "Upload
queue"-page it has
been published. A message will be displayed at the top of
"Upload
queue"-page ONCE after pictures has been published
saying how many
photos that were added to our site. You will also receive a
confirmation on e-mail.

Warm welcome to onexposure, I hope and believe you will have
a great
time!

/ Jacob



On Jun 5, 7:05 pm, "Paula Faraco"
<paulafar...hotmail.com> wrote:
> So Jacob... how can i get in onexposure.net !!
>
> Should i send you some of my pictures and you tell if i
can enter this
> photoglob ??
>
> Thanks, Paula.
>
> >From: jajo <m.crens...gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: photoblogsgooglegroups.com
> >To: Photoblogs <photoblogsgooglegroups.com>
> >Subject: [photoblogs-discuss] Re: Critical remarks
about onexposure.net
> >Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:19:58 -0700
>
> >Hi!
>
> >My name is Jacob and I am one of the founders of
onexposure.net. I
> >just wanted to leave a reply in this thread, to
answer some questions
> >raised and fill some gaps in the story told here.
>
> >First of all, for those who are unfamiliar with
onexposure.net:
>
> >* Onexposure.net is a photo community where
photographers upload their
> >best work . A group of screeners will look at every
photo uploaded
> >publish only those who fit for the site. Photos
that don't fit will be
> >rejected, and there are several ways within the
site to get critique
> >and help to better understand why. The selection of
photos is based on
> >evaluating originality, message, mood, aesthetics
and technical
> >quality.
> >* Onexposure.net is to be compared with a photo
magazine rather than
> >flickr, blog or any other site where you can store
your photos. This
> >is not the place for common photos of pets or
boring vacation shots.
> >This is a place for special shots.
> >* Onexposure.net relies on the philosophy of both
giving and taking.
> >Giving feedback, receiving feedback. Showing
photos, viewing others
> >photos. The screeners will spend quite a lot of
time looking at photos
> >uploaded (on average 10 minutes per photo).
Screeners often give
> >detailed feedback both on published shots, and
photos that didn't make
> >it all the way. All this is completely free and we
don't make a cent
> >on running this completely ad-free homepage. We pay
big bills for
> >internet and server every month. What we request in
return from our
> >users is the right to show photos uploaded.
>
> >About deleting photos:
>
> >* If we deleted all photos by a photographer, many
hours of unpaid
> >work by screeners and other members (giving
critique and commenting
> >photos) would be gone. This is not very respectful
for the site crew,
> >or other members. It also goes against our strive
to create a stable
> >environment, where photos are not disappearing all
of a sudden. In
> >short - we don't want our users to feel that it is
a waste to spend
> >time giving feedback. We also want to make the
photos immortal - like
> >in a photo paper magazine - where photos just don't
disappear for no
> >reason.
> >* We delete a photo (or a few photos) if the
photographer has a good
> >reason for it. We want people to enjoy the site and
feel comfortable
> >that we will listen to their requests.
> >* Some photographers wants to have all their photos
published. Once
> >they have a rejection, they demand that we change
or decision, or they
> >threat to leave the site and demand all photos to
be deleted. This is
> >a scenario that goes against the whole purpose of a
site where
> >everybody is judged equally (even the screeners
themselves!).
> >* Jens post makes it sound like we are trying to
hide the fact that we
> >don't delete photos without a good reason. This is
not at all right.
> >We display information about this on at least three
places: 1) When
> >you register. 2) In the web forums. 3) When you
upload a photo.
> >* We have well over 1000 users and more than 500
with one photo or
> >more published. Most people have no problem at all
with the fact that
> >we don't delete photos since they enjoy our site
and joined it because
> >they like what we do and how we do it.
> >* About the user agreement - ndiginiz is right that
it has changed.
> >Originally, the agreement said: "By
registering, you agree that your
> >personal information is stored in our database and
that your uploaded
> >pictures will be displayed on onexposure.net. This
information will
> >not be shared with anyone outside of
onexposure.net". This means
> >exactly the same - but the new user agreement is
clearer on the point
> >that we don't delete photos. Of course, the new
user agreement only
> >applies to users who registered after the change.
In our user table,
> >we save the complete agreement that each user
accepted, to make sure
> >we can clarify exactly what was accepted for a
certain user.
>
> >About changing personal info or canceling
membership:
>
> >* Of course we allow users to cancel their
membership if they like. We
> >will then make sure they are no longer visible in
the list of
> >photographers, their profiles will clearly show
that they are no
> >longer a member of the site and comments can no
longer be written on
> >photos.
> >* Changing personal info, like the photographer
name, is done by
> >contacting the site crew and is usually fixed
within one hour.
>
> >About  "strange moderating actions in the
forum":
>
> >* Like every serious forum, we remove posts being
off-topic or of low
> >value for the majority of the users. Jens posted
some poor-written
> >nonconstructive critique in a place where it didn't
belong, without
> >doing the most logic thing - bringing up his issues
with the site crew
> >first by e-mail. These posts were removed to keep
the quality in the
> >forum.
>
> >Why did Jens get angry then?
>
> >* We added a "member screening" feature
to the screening process. It
> >works like this: 1) Someone uploads a photo. 2) The
screeners will
> >look at it and choose either to publish it
directly, not publish it
> >(reject it) or send it to other screeners for their
input. 3) If sent
> >to other screeners and the screeners cannot decide
whether to publish
> >it or not, it can be added to the "member
screening" where all of our
> >users with at least 2 photos published can affect
the decision. If the
> >member votes against publishing, a reason for this
can be selected.
> >When a photo has received 10 votes for or against
publishing, the
> >screeners will get the photo back and in 99% of all
cases follow the
> >outcome. This is a feature that strengthens the
community and makes it
> >more alive. It is very popular, and makes the
selection of photos much
> >broader than what the screeners "like" or
"dislike".
> >* Jens has uploaded 35 photos to onexposure.net. 34
of them has been
> >published, because they were very good. One day, he
uploaded a shot
> >that, in our eyes, was quite poor. It was rejected,
and Jens appealed
> >our decision. Instead of just rejecting the appeal,
we decided to give
> >it a second chance by putting it in member
screening. 100% of the
> >votes was against publishing. We had no other
alternative than to
> >reject the appeal. Not only did Jens receive his
first rejection, he
> >was also humiliated by the fact that we gave the
power to our members.
> >This is, from what I can understand, the number 1
reason why he chose
> >to leave the site. We have probably spent 5 hours
or more with Jens
> >photos. He has received lots of comments and
feedback from other
> >members. All is now to be deleted, just because we
didn't publish the
> >photo. Is this fair?
> >* It almost sounds like Jens didn't come to
Onexposure for the give-
> >and-take experience. He came to be exposed. When we
tried to be fair
> >against other members and rejected the photo that
didn't meet our
> >requirements, he no longer had the control himself
and our site was
> >not interesting anymore. Demanding all the work of
the community on
> >his photos to be deleted is like spitting on the
community. We respect
> >that Jens left, but in return we would have
appreciated that the
> >photos uploaded could still be there - as a token
of appreciation of
> >what we have done for free. In respect of the work
by the community.
> >Still, it is free advertisement and the photos will
not be harmed by
> >being there. People will find them and be amazed by
them, and find his
> >homepage. (Jens: I will immediately restore the URL
to your homepage
> >in your deactivated profile on onexposure!).
>
> >In the end, all we want is to provide a unique
community with screened
> >content, with as much influence by the members as
possible. We want to
> >create a feeling of stability - photos published
will remain published
> >unless there are good reasons for taking them down.
A drama, like the
> >one directed by Jens, is not a reason good enough
in our eyes. Any
> >member uploading to onexposure should think of it
like sending a bunch
> >of photos to a photo magazine - only the best will
be published, and
> >they will remain published. In return, our users
will take part in
> >something that is growing fast with new exciting
features every month
> >and have lots of fun with other photographers from
all over the world,
> >sharing experiences in photo comments, forums and
galleries.
>
> >My last words: Onexposure is a very unique
community. A give-and-take
> >community. But like any other homepage, what
decides if it is "good"
> >or "bad" is what you are looking for. The
good thing with this thread
> >is that the information about our site will be even
clearer. Those who
> >share Jens opinion have been warned. The rest have
something quite
> >spectacular to look forward to. I can only hope
everybody makes up
> >their mind about onexposure.net themselves instead
of letting this one-
> >sided story ruin what might be the best page you
ever visited.
>
> >Thanks for reading to the end.
>
> >/ Jacob
>
> >On May 21, 8:54 pm, Jens <j...look-s.de> wrote:
> > > Hello together. Some of you may already know
this site and I also know
> > > that some have uploaded a few photos there. I
also liked the idea of
> > > the site, because the pictures only screened
pictures will be accepted
> > > for publication. So I have contributed with a
lot of  pictures there.
> > > After some time the owners of this site
established an additional
> > > membervote instead of the normal screening
which is used if the
> > > screeners refuse to make a final decision and
this was ecactly one
> > > thing I did not want when I decided to upload
my pictures there.
> > > Additionally there were some strange
"moderating" actions in the forum
> > > which I found not ok.
> > > So I decided to leave Onexposure and asked
the owners several times to
> > > delete my
>
> ...
>
> read more >>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Photoblogs" group.
To post to this group, send email to photoblogsgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
photoblogs-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http:
//groups.google.com/group/photoblogs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---