Number of sub forums

[Mike Kovacs]

Does anyone agree with me that perhaps there are too many sub forums?  I find it difficult to follow what is going on when there are so many.

Just one man's opinon  

[nelsonfoto]

I think I've got it where it's going to lay. Covers just about everything under the sun. Randy made a good point about the post-70 SLR gear, so I added the SLR and RF forums. This should keep us from having the sort of problems we had on photo.net with knuckleheads like me wanting to share their XG1 stuff on the classic forum.

There will be adjustments. I am receptive to feedback and suggestions. I firmly believe that the forum exists not for me but for those who use it, and to that end wish to make the experience the best possible for all. That, of course, requires some averaging out, but we'll make do.



So, with that said, I'm listening.

[nelsonfoto]

As info:

I think you will find, once you get settled in here, that a PHPBB forum is a very nice thing. While it is certainly much different than photo.net, there are tools available at your mousetip that can assist you in finding the most recent activity, which is what it sounds like might be the issue.



Look in the upper right corner? See those options? That's powerful medicine. Granted, you must be logged in to take advantage of them as they work according to when the DB last saw you on-line. Nonetheless, I think those might be of incredible value.

C.

[nelsonfoto]

Ok, re-thunk some things and a quick consolidation carried out. Hope that better ties the room together.

Lemme know.

[Mike Kovacs]

For example, if I have a pre-1970 RF or SLR, where exactly should I post?  I would say classics but maybe not.

[nelsonfoto]

See for me that's a simple issue. It would depend entirely on what YOU find important about the item - are you a collector who specializes in pre-70 SLRs and RFs, or a photographer who has a question about RFs or SLRs? Does that make any sense?

Open ears on my end.

[nelsonfoto]

Hmmm, I noted that I had mention of SLR and RFs in the Classics description. Both have removed from the wording in order to avoid confusion.

[nelsonfoto]

Ok, I've taken another look at the round-up and gone to work. Unless their are specific problems that need to be addressed, I'm going to stick with this line-up, at least until we are all settled in.

[connealy]

I only ever tried to follow a few forums on photo.net.  It is a bit more of a challenge with conversations grouped under many headings.  Maybe it will all sort itself out as the content in each area becomes more obvious.

I think it was a good idea to consolidate pinhole and plastic.  Judging from my experience in trying to get the Alternative Cameras forum going, one has to expect a small amount of traffic in these areas for some time.  I thought things would move a bit faster on photo.net as there had been quite a few expressions of interest in the planning phase, but it seems like most of those people showed up to post just a message or two and then moved on.  The other thing I think happened was that the photo.net culture succeeded in alientating a lot of pinhole and plastic people over the years and those folks found other homes.

[KirkT]

Okay, but what if I have a pre 70s rangefinder camera, that's been converted with post 70s parts and can use both modern and older SLR lenses AND has been modified to accept 35mm, 120 and 4x5.

Okay, now I'm just being difficult

 :wink: