What do members think of the new web site & forum structure?

To clarify my role, no, I'm not a member of the admin.
Quite some time ago I contacted admin about my concerns for the future of DPREvived. I looked at what was working on the site and what wasn't. On the basis of that, I suggested a plan for the redevelopment of the site and an approach to recruiting new members. As Arvo says (and I have always said) it may not be the best plan, but a plan was needed if we are to survive. If any one could come up with another plan, that was/is fine by me.
Here we are.

As I note in my message of a moment ago to Arvo/Ted, I'm not a member of the admin.
In my other life, I'm part owner of a business and we have a website. That website successfully targets search engines. The challenge at Dprevived/The Photo is entirely different.
Imagine you are a photographer who knows nothing at all about us. What words/terms/phrases can you imagine you might use would result in a link to us? Believe me, I've tried. We are too small to register. All the terms a photographer is likely to use for a search will get responses, but they wont be to us. We understood this.
Instead, we have a plan that is initially built on referrals rather than search engines. For this to work we need a place to refer people to. That place has to give an overview of what we are about, what makes us different, and has immediate access to some of our features so we can be checked out. It is generally felt that when people look at a new site for the first time, they either get interested and engage with two clicks (max of three) or they don't return.
dprevived.com/ is our main site in that it is the Misago forum platform on which everything here depends. It is not a place that can spells out what we are about and it doesn't make it easy and intuitive to find anything that might engage a newcomer.
www.the-photo.org/ is designed to serve a purpose at this point of time. Note that "at this point of time." Its purpose is to be a landing point for potential members who will be referred here. It asserts that we are image focussed, (as distinct from a site where people go to discuss gear). It has shortcuts into the main index so things that might be of interest to a newcomer, such as B&W photography, can immediately be seen and checked out. You will see Street and Abstract Experimental there as well. These don't have direct links as yet but we think they will shortly.
The plan for the "referral" stage, once we think everything is ready to go (and it isn't yet) is likely to take a few months. That's' where the "at this point of time" is relevant. Beyond that time, a different kind of landing page for a different purpose will probably be needed.

If you will look around, there are quite a few websites offering picture sharing and discussing. It is very competitive area and to compete one have to offer at least same features if not more. No offense, but what this site have to offer? To create and manage gallery you have to go through admin. When posting pictures, the screen is clattered with annoying thumbnails. Challenges have to be anonymous and theme based. You do not compare architectural images with images of dragonfly. It is not even like compare apples to oranges. When scrolling through pictures in the intermediate screen, it scrolls through all pictures in all posts. Now about discussing gear. If you want to take good pictures you better know your gear, because technical aspect is not less important than composition. Of course I am talking about myself, but for me discussing gear is not less interesting than sharing pictures.
So, with all due respect, you have to have something to offer if you want to attract more participants.

I agree that people want to discuss gear. We are tool late to that party. There already exist sites with years of databases on gear and large user groups for brands. Anyone who wants gear info wasn't going to be joining us, they would go to the biggest repositories of that info they could find because there, they have a better chance of getting the info they need. Neither was it likely that we could spend years building up a data base of our own to meet that need. We had to find a different path. When I have a tech question or issue with my Sony gear, this isn't where I come for answers.
Neither was anyone else. When we looked through the site to see what was working, what was attracting conversations, it wasn't gear. The gear genres could go months, sometimes over a year, without a post. Imagine a new Nikon owner who goes to our website, clicks Nikon and finds almost zilch. Would you sign on?
We needed arrivals to bump into plenty of fresh activity and the gear/genre based forums weren't doing it.
What was working though was the Weekly threads. The no brand, no theme Weekly C&C., though your Eyes and The Collegial etc were keeping the site alive. The message was clear. The weekly format ensured that new posts got responses. It ensured that discussions remained fresh. The decision was made to encourage more weekly threads. Compare the activity level now in The Weekly Landscape or B&W with the posts that were made previously with genres.
What is being done doesn't preclude gear discussion. "How was that shot done" "How can I improve this" all lead to tech discussion within a thread but it will be based on an image rather than gear in general.
Technical and Open Discussions are still there for those that have a need for them, but check the extent to which they are used. Can you see that as a basis for expanding our site?
What we have to offer is what we are doing in the weekly threads. We are attempting to build more detailed analysis and discussion of the images. Yes, it isn't easy. Something more insightful than ticking "like " is what we have in mind.

Yes, it's why we are initially looking at how we might get referrals.

I still don't think you understood what I was suggesting. I will leave it at that. Hopefully Arvo's idea of tags will prove beneficial. Otherwise I have some ideas.

OK David. Fair question. I'll try try to answer your last point.
I assume we are all accepting that we need to get members or go under. For all the reasons that everyone has already scratched their heads over, we don't believe a search engine based strategy will work for us.
We intend a three stage recruitment strategy based on referrals.
Stage one is simple and obvious. It's really more of a testing out of the system. When we are confident the pages are doing what we want them to do, we'll be looking to current members to join us in reaching out to personal photography contacts we all may have.
Stage two is more complex. We will be targeting selected bloggers to give us some mention.. The assumption is that bloggers already have contact with numbers of photographers. We aren't competing against bloggers and we think we can make a case for them to do this.
Stage three may never be attempted and whether or not we try it will depend on what happens with one and two. I don't wish to discuss it at this time.

Looking at a couple AI:

Pretending to be someone who just bought a Sigma camera:

Asked "In photographic fora (forums) how many are specifically for Sigma cameras?"

Current ChatGPT: DPrevived is not found, nor is The-Photo; it found DPReview.
Older Open AI Gpt 3.5: DPrevived is found, but not The-Photo; says DPReview is "shut down".

Not if potential members don't use AI.

I asked another ... hix.ai/home?id=cm8kukq9n1dza1064r3df1hdl

No mention of dprevived at all, let alone the-photo.

Assuming again that potential members don't use AI, no loss there to the team (your good selves and Mike).

My question would be "do potential members use AI?"

How is that going? Will the membership be consulted about that?

Indeed they will. As one of the steps, we will be asking all members to think about their photo friends/contacts. Messages will be coming about this in the not too distant.

Good to hear, Mike!

Hi all,

I keep checking this forum from time to time, although I'm not participating. Not very helpful to keep the site living, I know. But I have a few comments regarding the forum/site, that maybe you can find interesting.

The landing page (the-photo), on which you want n'es users to arrive, must be attractive. Really. And currently it's not. Having links to lively threads is excellent, but it looks like in the 90's. I remember a thread from a while back discussing its design, with very interesting suggestions (and I took part in that discussion), eventually completely ignored.

One - the main - reason I look at photo forums is for constructive comments & critiques. One thing that makes me leave is the feeling that it is not welcome or a common practice. Pictures posted here got very little to no comments at all. And there were even official posts saying that critiques are not welcome unless the title includes "C&C" (or similar), which is really too bad in my opinion. I can understand (barely) that people don't want their pictures modified, but constructive discussion and critique is the point of a forum (Is it ? A forum is not just another online gallery ?). And that is missing in most (if not all) forums I've seen. To the point that some forums have a paid section where you can have comments from experienced photographers. But there is the important question : what is the purpose of dprevived.com/the-photo.org ?

On this subject, the weekly critique thread is great. But, in its current form, it is extremely hard to follow if you're not reading it every day. It would be much better if all comments about one picture were grouped, with one thread per picture, or, as asked by some users, a "threaded view" instead of the current "flat view".

Eventually, as said by other members in this thread, keeping a direct access to common photo genres (landscape, b&w, street...) is essential, as some users are "specialized", and there must be some activity in these pages besides the weekly thread.

Best,
Ben