Poll to choose the new layout structure

Some of youz guys need to wake up and smell the coffee.
In 30 years or less, everyone here (including myself) and most of the people that you know in the real world will be dead.

In the meantime… I intend to just go with the flow.

Sheesh… First World problems !

Hi,

While we are at this, where to stuff the Kodak SLRs? They are both Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. They have plenty of oddball sized sensors along with APS-C APS-H and Full Frame. They were all Discontinued about 20 years ago now.

I suppose we can leave these alone over on DP Review and also NikonWeb (oddly has a Kodak forum along with one for older Nikons like the E series). Lots of Kodak history there, including many posts from the Kodak developers.

Although we recently had an interesting discussion regarding replacing Li Ion cells in the 14n, SLR/n and SLR/c cameras right here.

Not going to be much said about those models these days. The first page goes back to January 2022 and the most recent is 3 days old.

Stan

Let me be a bit brutal .... The migration from DPR, I assume, is no longer happening and if anything it is going back!! .. The current "Threads" shows that there are less than a dozen entries in the last 12 hours so where is the need for a forum structure ..... What seems to be needed is a reason for more visitors to join and participate ... and more participation by existing members ... I rarely go to a forum and then only to post a picture or two ... I normally work from the Thread as that is what is showing me what is actively going on .... responding to threads that are more than a day old usually doesn't elicit much discussion ... but then I'm too spending more time over on DPR ...... I appreciate the work you've done and I'd like to see this venture succeed and thrive .. I'm still participating here ... but then .....

WhyNot

Not to mention Mike Collette’s Dicomed and Betterlight backs.

The problem with Dev 3 is that the page is too large. It is over four screensful on my 12“ ipad. I compared with the DPR forum popup menu, which saves a lot of space, and is, moreover, easier to read quickly. Can the layout be condensed?

David

"...whatever everyone wants"???? 😊😎. That's obviously not going to happen so not sure what you mean by that.

Hopefully you'll get 50%+ on one option for a majority decision otherwise you'll end up with at best a "most popular" option with <50% in which case more than 50% of the votes will have been for other options than the "most popular".

Fwiw, I voted for Try 1.

It was Dev 3 that I was looking at. But maybe I did not understand it.

If photography is the prime focus of the site, rather than gear, fora that encourage this need to be at the top of the list. The placing of options is important. Supermarkets and other organisation use this as a means of directing sales.

At present, >50% for any one of the options would mean 24 votes, which equates to 33% of those online as I write, and 6% of the total membership. I conclude that this is not a hot topic with users, and that the team should make their own decision about it, adjusting the balance as time goes by; but now move on and release more energy for the development of other important areas of the site that Bobn2 has been writing about for some time.

David

No matter what format you change to this time around, you can make further changes as the site evolves.

The Sigma Foveon's have a crop factor of 1.7 IIRC, smaller than APS-C so certainly no APS-H ....
And then there is at least one existing Sigma for L mount [which is FF], plus the persistent hope for the Sigma FFF (Full Frame Foveon).
Nikon 1 and Pentax Q are small sensored ILC's

To me this shows that the format is not a very good distinguishing point to base the organization of the forum on. I also don't see what people might want to discuss on the FF or APS-C level. We all know our equivalence don't we, some even got the t-shirt.

What is more useful IMO is a categorization based on lens mount: for instance all Nikon Z lenses and adapters can be used on all Nikon Z bodies, independent of the sensor size

Do not mistake yourself
The Sigma sd Quattro H (2016-17) is APS-H format

Sigma sd Quattro H (2016-17) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Sigma SD9, SD10, SD14, SD15 and the early DP series use a slightly smaller than APS-C 1.7x crop Foveon X3 sensor
SD1 and all DP Merrills use a standard 1.5x crop APS-C sensor Foveon X3
sd Quattros and dp Quattros use 1.5x APS-C Foveon Quattro sensors
sd Quattro H uses a slightly larger than APS-C Foveon Quattro sensor, Sigma call APS-H, but it isn't (1.3x crop, maybe?).
fp and fp L use full frame Bayer sensors.

I have now looked at dev 2. I find it too complicated; but I guess I can get used to it. But really, it doesnt matter to me which one you choose. As I said above, I believe that there are more important aspects of the site that need development more urgently, and the number of people who have taken the trouble to vote in this poll is such a small percentage of the total membership, that I suspect most members agree with me 😀

The layout is not going to determine whether I maintain interest in the site: the level of courtesy expected of the members is more important to me.

David

PS: Where does discussion of Sony RX-100 cameras come?

To continue in your logic, the Canon 1.6X and Sony sensors 1.5X ( Nikon, Pentax …) are not in the same category either.

I don't see how a poll on this can be done until the admin team clarifies the extent or otherwise that it wants to be a "gear" site (or any other kind of site). Brand discussions/forums, Reviews, News all really gather a big enough audience to be appealing only if they have enough participants so there is lots of info available. The chicken and the egg. In the conversation I'm involved in Open Talk I suggested that most who take part in forums want to discuss gear but that DPR has dominance in this area. The trick will be to find another niche that can generate enough participants to be viable for the kind of market it carves out. I have made suggestions there. If I'm interpreting the responses I have received from admin so far correctly (and I'm finding that difficult) the admin/owners seem to be saying that no, they don't see themselves as a gear site but they still want to have a finger in that pie (without being clear about what this means.)
I suggest that a new layout structure has to reflect the vision that the admin/owners have for the site. ie., the vision needs more clarity before the layout is determined.

I don't really see the conflict you're describing to be honest... This poll is for getting an idea about the preferences for the forum structure only. As fas as I'm aware there aren't any proposals yet for how the editorial content will be structured or implemented, so that will probably be a separate topic later on and depend on who is able to contribute and what. While I assume that the admin team already has some ideas and proposals on that, it doesn't have to do anything with the poll at hand. I welcome a change (particularly the reduction of numbers of subforums overall) in the forum structure and while I'm under no illusion that this change will have a big impact in terms of participation or active members (because of the continuation of dpreview this probably has to be seen treated like a completely new forum starting out, so it will take a significant amount of time to attract more people) I hope that the simpler structure is going to help with visibility and encourage participation in other areas than just 'my narrow niche' (I have been guilty of that in the past, particularly at dpreview and see this as an opportunity to check out new things.

So my suggestions (to everyone, not just you), if you're willing to participate in making this a different site, would probably be the following:

• vote in the poll if you have an opinion on the changes of the forum structure
• think of some additional topics you would like to see in your ideal forum and create them
• consider if you're able and willing to provide something interesting in terms of editorial content and if so, propose it to someone on the team via private thread
• gather your ideas for the upcoming editorial site, but I'd consider it fair to at least wait for a first proposal from the admin team before you call the approach into question.

I agree with that when it comes to the structure of the editorial content, but as stated above, I haven't seen anything on that yet, so let's wait and focus on getting the forum in shape.

I hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying or complicate things even further. I'm optimistic that this project can grow into an interesting site with its own identity over time and that the image sharing as well as discussion of images, concepts, ideas and unique approaches will play a significant role there!

Yes, I totally agree.

In the first week or so after the genesis of dprevived there was a discussion thread about what the mission statement for dprevived should be.

Now, four months on I don't see an agreed/approved mission statement anywhere on this site.

All I see on various threads are mixed and vague descriptions of what admin would like this site to be.

Until what this site stands for and is are clearly defined and published somewhere then it seems to me some admin and members are pulling in different directions.

Given that member activity/participation here has gone over the cliff (judging by the age of posts in the threads list and the number of ranked posts in the users pages) especially since DPReview announced they are not closing then a clear mission statement is the very least this site needs to have any chance of getting back to the member activity and participation of the first month after the birth of dprevived.

A new forum structure alone based on the handful of members still participating on dprevived is not going to make much, if any, difference to anything.