Another Too Quiet, Time to Rant Post

[Kestrana]

I’m trying an experiment this week in posting less dry more abstract titles for some of my photos and see if there’s a measurable difference.

We could try it here too. Is your reaction to this photo different with a different title?

Lights at the Virginia State Fair by kestrana, on Flickr

Wings of Fire, Rivers of Gold by kestrana, on Flickr

[CauseISaidSo]

You’ve made me realize two things:

1) When scanning the contest, I don’t look at the entry text unless the photo itself seems to warrant further explanation or details. At the same time, I assume everyone else always reads my texts. Hmmm….
2) I don’t title my photos so much as I give them a byline like you’d see in a newspaper. So, most like your first and rarely like your second.

Given #1, I’d say my reaction was the same to both, but do let us know if you detect a discernible difference this week.

[Yugoboy]

The second image made me physically aroused. The change was that dramatic!

😳
Where’s that sarcasm font, anyway?

[fluffybunny]

I prefer short titles, so I would go with “Wings of fire”. I tend to drift between the abstract and the factual when choosing a title, mostly dependent on my mood or the impression I get from photograph.

[ennuipoet]

ennuipoet I will point out that what you see in your stream is your choice…you don’t have to recircle every person that circles you. I have about 1600 followers but I’m only following about 300 people and from the outcry of the masses on G+ I’m guessing (and hoping) they will soon implement a filter for your default stream.

But that said, I know what you mean. There’s been some people I’ve uncircled after awhile because they just spammed and spammed and spammed.
And an internet friend of mine asked me to start posting my photos from a page rather than as myself because they were clogging his stream. It’s not perfect but it’s in progress.

The whole thing, Facebook and G+ has become dangerously like work, posting, filtering and circling. I see why people are hired as “social media gurus” because it can be a full time job doing it for a company. That’s why I stick with posting to my photo blog and then linking the posts.

[staplermofo]

Titles are a tool available to photographers. If it can affect how the audience appreciates it, it’s a useful tool.
If you want people to like your stuff, you have to give them what they want. Even when you can change someone’s tastes, you can’t do it quickly.
Popularity is a poor measure of quality, but it’s a useful measure in itself. Take it as a challenge to find what else you can display, convey or express in your photography other than your photograph.
It’s sort of the ultimate challenge to take something you think should be opposed and work with it until you’ve found a place for it in your work.

(Says the guy who thinks this is artful expression, and cries every time he watches it. *sniffle sniff*)

[staplermofo]

Also, as a side note, part of my job is calculating the publicity value of forum posts and google plus and all that crap. According to our publicity value calculator, any mention in a farktography thread is worth $32,150.
A half page mention in National Geographic is worth $32,825.25

[orionid]

Pay me moneys.

[Plamadude30k]

Also, as a side note, part of my job is calculating the publicity value of forum posts and google plus and all that crap. According to our publicity value calculator, any mention in a farktography thread is worth $32,150.
A half page mention in National Geographic is worth $32,825.25

Me = Floored.

[Kestrana]

Also, as a side note, part of my job is calculating the publicity value of forum posts and google plus and all that crap. According to our publicity value calculator, any mention in a farktography thread is worth $32,150.
A half page mention in National Geographic is worth $32,825.25

O.O how in the heck is that possible?

[ravnostic]

Where’s the +1 buttons for the comments here? The thread is full of win in a number of places.

Regarding circles: As one of the early people who got in when G+ was restrictive, I got a head start. Started with the people I knew, and it grew from there. When G+ went wide, it got so I couldn’t keep up with the adds, then I figured out how to mass-dump quantities of people into a folder called ‘Followers’, which got up to 2000+ before I said ‘enough of this crap–the stream is a raging river and I can’t keep up’–and I deleted the circle.

This, as it turns out, is not a bad thing. Circle management got a whole lot easier. Turns out this just leads to more followers–and now I can just ignore them. They don’t go away. Gadflys? Nah. Just haven’t bothered to comment or share something that compels me to add them as a person of interest.

Regarding the ‘popularity’ factor–ever since MySpace–and hell, even blogger.com before it, which is as far as I thin back–this has been an issue. The whole follower thing is a giant popularity contest, and there comes a point when enough people follow you that the followers among us just want to belong to the tribe. 90% of those are suck-ups. Scott Jarvie actually posted on this a couple months ago. Or maybe it was Wil Wheaton. Celebrity has it’s price–paparazzi.

I personally favor a title, and I try to think of good ones when I can. Elsewise, I go for a location title, at the very least. But if there’s a ‘why I took this shot’ needed, or I feel compelled to share my mood while taking the picture, I definitely do.

The other thing I’ve learned is a re-learn from the MySpace blogging years. Once upon a time, “Teach, with a ‘Tude” and her husband “William (somebody’s) Voice” (the guy who did K.I.T.T. on knight rider) decided to have a barbeque, and all their MS friends were invited. I was the only one who drove in from Arizona, but a number of bloggers in and around the L.A. area (about 30) came. We had a ball. We became a tighter-knit sub community within the MySpace rhelm. For 2 years, we met quarterly–newbs were always welcome, and I met well over 100 people, in life, through those channels (and also a trip to NY, about 70 people, Mexico for just one, etc.) I’m still friends with nearly all of them on Facebook (except two,who’ve died). I’m slowly converting them to G+, muah-ha-ha.

The same thing happened on the photowalk in Phoenix; we came, we met, we shared some experiences, and I spend more of my time rapping with this new group, viewing just the stream of 17. Which will grow, next weekend, as I go to a Tucson photowalk, and meet a few more, plus reaquaint with some others.

This is where the social networking thing has led me–YMMV. Finding people I like, meeting them with a shared common interest, and enjoying bits of our lives either virtually or in person. And all the suffocants and haters and nay-sayers and followers et al? As a nerd and geek and wimp, I’ve dealt with them my whole life, and at some point along the way, I chose to ignore them, and have fun where I can make it.

And I must say–I’ve had a lot of fun. This group, in particular, has helped me grow not only photographically, but also personally and, in it’s way, has also helped me professionally. That’s why I’m still around–people who care always shine through. Those are the ones you keep.

[Yugoboy]

I definitely feel having a presence is important in the long-term.

I’m not sure I’ve become a terrifically better photographer, but just being around every week has had, I think, an impact on the voting a bit. Only a bit, but nevertheless, a bit. It’s also not hard to make a splash in the Photoshop contests, and then stick around awhile. Some people get votes “because”.

Presence isn’t everything, but it’s a start. If/when I finally win a Farktography contest, it’ll be on merits, but trending into the top half of the voting is (in part) a result of presence.

Or I’m full of crap. It’s way possible.

[staplermofo]

O.O how in the heck is that possible?

BECAUSE WE ARE AWESOME!

The short answer is we still suck at judging the worth of internet coverage.

The long answer is that NatGeo has about 4.5 million subscribers, and Fark.com has a lot more monthly hits than that. Fark also gets a bump up in value for being a “media influencer”, another bump up for being “social media” and yet another bump for its Alexa ranking. Then you have to remember the difference between ad value equivalency and publicity value, which is why they won’t give you money.

[Author]

Posts