YouAreHere
Established
On my desktop, after logging out and then back in, the 'home page' for me is not the RangefinderForum Portal tab but rather Browse/Forums and the display is saved as I'd set earlier, to Fluid. Here all the Forums and Sub-Forums are shown (albeit not exactly the same as existing style).
But if just browsing RFF as a Guest then RangefinderForum Portal tab is the home page. And I cannot, without logging in, change how Browse/Forums is displayed.
So, I like the way the new version looks when I am logged in but I do not like it when I am not.
mconnealy
Well-known
I don't often post pictures or comments on RFF. However, I have followed the forums daily for a long time and I greatly value the site as a film photography resource. I mostly think that the current format does a good job of meeting users' needs, though I can think of a few enhancements based on what I see available on other platforms.
Another forum I follow regularly is Filmwasters. One feature I appreciate there among others is the "go down" button; that saves a lot of scrolling time as it permits instantly going to the last post in a thread.
I post what I consider my best photos on Flickr and I maintain a blog. My purpose in both instances is to have the capacity to curate my own viewing experience, both in regard to my pictures and to those of other photographers. On Flickr I can opt to follow other users' work and when I click on "People" I get to see the most recent picture posted by all those I follow; there are usually a couple dozen per day. Flickr also allows me to easily follow specific topics through user groups and permits me to organize my own photos in folders based on criteria that I select.
The feature proposed for the new RFF.net that seems most revolutionary is the capacity to upload photos directly to the site. The implementation is very nice. While that is something a lot of users will greatly appreciate it does raise some questions about the direction of the site.
Direct uploading of photos seems to put RFF in direct competition with Flickr. The last stats I have seen indicate around six million Flickr uploads daily; that seems like quite a high bar in terms of server load. Since RFF has a more restricted focus than Flickr I suppose one could expect less of a burden, but easy, free uploading of images and unrestricted linking is going to attract a lot of use which is not directly connected to the site's objectives I would think. I wonder if there is a plan in the works to offset the cost of additional traffic by some kind of paid membership.
While I think Flickr generally offers a lot of value in regard to letting users organize their own work, it has really deteriorated in regard to exchanging ideas. Even in the Flickr groups that are heavily used there is currently almost no discussion among group participants. I'm not sure why that is; I can only imagine it has something to do with social networking, but I don't know where specific discussions about film photography are taking place outside of RFF and a few other film-oriented sites. Easy and responsive forum interaction along with a knowledgeable and enthusiastic user base really seems to be RFF's great strength, so continuing to support that seems like it ought to be the main objective to me.
Another forum I follow regularly is Filmwasters. One feature I appreciate there among others is the "go down" button; that saves a lot of scrolling time as it permits instantly going to the last post in a thread.
I post what I consider my best photos on Flickr and I maintain a blog. My purpose in both instances is to have the capacity to curate my own viewing experience, both in regard to my pictures and to those of other photographers. On Flickr I can opt to follow other users' work and when I click on "People" I get to see the most recent picture posted by all those I follow; there are usually a couple dozen per day. Flickr also allows me to easily follow specific topics through user groups and permits me to organize my own photos in folders based on criteria that I select.
The feature proposed for the new RFF.net that seems most revolutionary is the capacity to upload photos directly to the site. The implementation is very nice. While that is something a lot of users will greatly appreciate it does raise some questions about the direction of the site.
Direct uploading of photos seems to put RFF in direct competition with Flickr. The last stats I have seen indicate around six million Flickr uploads daily; that seems like quite a high bar in terms of server load. Since RFF has a more restricted focus than Flickr I suppose one could expect less of a burden, but easy, free uploading of images and unrestricted linking is going to attract a lot of use which is not directly connected to the site's objectives I would think. I wonder if there is a plan in the works to offset the cost of additional traffic by some kind of paid membership.
While I think Flickr generally offers a lot of value in regard to letting users organize their own work, it has really deteriorated in regard to exchanging ideas. Even in the Flickr groups that are heavily used there is currently almost no discussion among group participants. I'm not sure why that is; I can only imagine it has something to do with social networking, but I don't know where specific discussions about film photography are taking place outside of RFF and a few other film-oriented sites. Easy and responsive forum interaction along with a knowledgeable and enthusiastic user base really seems to be RFF's great strength, so continuing to support that seems like it ought to be the main objective to me.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I'm for the new version. But please, please provide a dark theme! 
charjohncarter
Veteran
Is there a way I can see the daily posts like when I found this post? I looked but don't see it. I would prefer to not have to go to specific sub-categories; I like the serendipity running though what is new.
css9450
Veteran
That looks like the exact opposite of what I hope this site could become. Perhaps I am in a minority... Maybe that site works better on smartphones? Yes, I am a luddite who does not have a smartphone, but I do have plenty of cameras.... And a regular monitor.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I've had a smartphone for some time, but for this site and the other photo sites I frequent I almost always do so on the home or office computers with monitors or else the netbook when on the road.
summar
Well-known
The new format works for me. I've always used the black-on-white option. One nitpicking comment: I liked the boldface font the old format used for the titles of unread threads -- easier to see right away what threads new to me are all about.
dct
perpetual amateur
Agreed. In any case the new forum is too "light" as viewing experience. No bold or contrast colours to help the eye find its way. It looks very wishy-washy.
This is indeed a big plus of the old forum: Can't this be replicated to some extent with separate selectable layouts?
dct
perpetual amateur
Maybe we should poll the read/contribute usage of the actually active members of the old forum.
Read only (daily, quickly, during commuting): On smartphone via Tapatalk app. Hence: I don't need a mobile optimized look and feel! (I suppose the new forum can also be accessed via Tapatalk)
Read only (longer than 5 minutes): Like the big chronological overview of the new posts in the .com portal
Posting answers: 99 % I do this only via web portal, because of the far more complex edit and cut/paste capabilities of a computer against the minimalistic handling on a smartphone. Again: Don't need any smartphone optimized view.
The big plus of the new .net forum regarding images seems to be acclaimed by most of the posters here. I have to test this too.
Conclusion: Make the web portal strong again (coundn't resist
) and don't look too much at the mobile side. Tapatalk is in any case the better application for this.
dct
perpetual amateur
This Is A Post Title
This Is A Post Title
I don't use it often, but there are threads where this is useful to enhance a side topics or a summary of the hundred posts before etc.
Not possible in the new forum software?
This Is A Post Title
I don't use it often, but there are threads where this is useful to enhance a side topics or a summary of the hundred posts before etc.
Not possible in the new forum software?
dct
perpetual amateur
Separate Mobile Layout?
Separate Mobile Layout?
Many discussed pro and cons here are about the way the new .net layout adopts to mobile devices (PLUS). But misses completely the strong look and feel on traditional computer devices (MINUS).
But you can have both: An "old fashioned" HTML enhanced web portal view (for standard computer devices or smart TVs) and a separate mobile view (for smartphones etc.)
Thake the NYT as an example.
www.nytimes.com is the normal web portal view (on computer). They even show some traditional newspaper layout.
Of course, using a mobile devices it changes the layout. But completely!
Because this is not the web portal layout which changes, rather the redirection to a mobile optimized separate layout. (Content is of course the same)
You can address it directly with mobile.nytimes.com.
Couldn't this be configured similarly also in the new software in RFF .net?
Separate Mobile Layout?
Many discussed pro and cons here are about the way the new .net layout adopts to mobile devices (PLUS). But misses completely the strong look and feel on traditional computer devices (MINUS).
But you can have both: An "old fashioned" HTML enhanced web portal view (for standard computer devices or smart TVs) and a separate mobile view (for smartphones etc.)
Thake the NYT as an example.
www.nytimes.com is the normal web portal view (on computer). They even show some traditional newspaper layout.
Of course, using a mobile devices it changes the layout. But completely!
Because this is not the web portal layout which changes, rather the redirection to a mobile optimized separate layout. (Content is of course the same)
You can address it directly with mobile.nytimes.com.
Couldn't this be configured similarly also in the new software in RFF .net?
dotur
od karnevala
Will a RFF member be allowed to delete a photo from his own member album in the gallery? If so, please provide us with the answer how?
Bill Clark
Veteran
Whoa, they are pretty proud of that...
Alberti
Well-known
Absolutely like the new forum.
The quality of rendering is great.
Surpasses everything. Better than LFI for instance. And the quality sells.
The gallery works. Direct upload works (but the last omnes I did hot the queue ..)
The link to flickr does not work yet (but I do not have to tell you).
If you are able to have such great inages it should be possible to link the image to cameratype and lenstype and then to a button 'how to buy' (not just a cheapo eBay link) and this shoul allow some sponsor money (like from Leica) to flo in.
The quality of rendering is great.
Surpasses everything. Better than LFI for instance. And the quality sells.
The gallery works. Direct upload works (but the last omnes I did hot the queue ..)
The link to flickr does not work yet (but I do not have to tell you).
If you are able to have such great inages it should be possible to link the image to cameratype and lenstype and then to a button 'how to buy' (not just a cheapo eBay link) and this shoul allow some sponsor money (like from Leica) to flo in.
Alberti
Well-known
Something I sort or like (or hate) is the possibility that is given in the Gallery (old) and also in LFI (in the posts) en in the RFF.new too: a button to say you like a picture that is posted.
It is there.
Q. Does that link back and is it visible on the picture on the gallery? (in case of using a gallery picture?)
It is there.
Q. Does that link back and is it visible on the picture on the gallery? (in case of using a gallery picture?)
Alberti
Well-known
1) I like the black graphite/white font of the old site
2) I like the RFF structure - do not like the amalgamy of Flickr et al.
- I love the way the pictures pop up when clicked.
3) I love the loading of images and the resulting quality
Note that white letters on black are not easy to read and as such ad companies generally avoid it.
2) I like the RFF structure - do not like the amalgamy of Flickr et al.
- I love the way the pictures pop up when clicked.
3) I love the loading of images and the resulting quality
Note that white letters on black are not easy to read and as such ad companies generally avoid it.
dmr
Registered Abuser
For some reason, the white-on-black "works" for this site! Very easy on the eyes.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
