• Thomas Hawk doesn’t exist.  He’s really Andrew Petersen, a San-Francisco-based stockbroker (direct link).
• The overall consensus of Hawk isn’t terribly positive.  Similar to my own. I do find it interesting that people criticize his work, when in my mind it is very much subjective.
• A link (from here) to the most important page on Flickr. Yes indeed: the contacts page is indeed quite a mess. This ties in to my complaints about comments.
• There is a definite feeling that Yahoo has killed Flickr.  Flickr, after their previous layoffs, has definitely lost their key supporters.
• There is a feeling that the quality of photographers has dropped.  I believe they are heading for 500px and similar sites, where they are taken more seriously.
• I get a feeling that Flickr has become a commodity to Yahoo.  They are turning into the Budweiser of photo-sharing sites.
• There are multiple complaints from people that their comments/contacts have dropped off.  I have noticed the same.

If you’ve never followed them, here’s why I liked them: they had timely photos, in large sizes that made an excellent addendum to the news.

This is similar to The Big Picture, who remains on my lists. The WSJ covers many subjects each day.  The Big Picture focuses on a single subject, but in depth.  They normally worked very well together, supplementing each other’s content. Dare I say: there was synergy, having them both in the same blogroll.

So now out goes the WSJ. Is there a replacement that won’t irritate me to the point of vulgarity?  If so, I haven’t found it yet.

Note: I know, the LA Times has tried to follow the WSJ’s lead with their Framework site.  Somehow they have managed to make it even more frustrating than the WSJ’s site.

Multiple pages - really, why?

I have somewhat of a minor gripe, but it really burns my britches.  So just like that, you’ll have to deal with it.  The gripe: the WSJ photoblog has changed their format.  It used to be that you would click on the page, and it would load (albeit slowly, sometimes – there are a lot of high-quality pictures there, usually). Starting a short while ago, with a short hiatus which ended today, they shifted the format: you load the day’s photos, and then there are more pages of photos.  There might be two or three pages.

The main gripe: when I’m looking at pictures online, I’m in the zone.  Particularly if it’s news-related.  With the WSJ now, I get to the bottom and… have to wait for the next page to load.  Just a few seconds?  Eff you: I’m on the other side of the country.  It takes a while. This multi-page policy completely interrupts the flow of my reading.

Think like this: you’re reading a great article on the front page of a newspaper. It tells you to skip to the back.  Now, in the middle of the article: stop the person for two minutes.  Hell, stop me for twenty seconds: concentration is completely lost, and I might as well not read the article at all.  The interruption has to be small.

But it’s not small.  Twenty seconds would be a dream, where I’m at – and in any case, it prevents me from going backwards, or scrolling up and down.

The thing is, I’m not really sure *why* this is.  It’s not like the extra pages do anything other than piss people off.  Are they so desperate for ad revenue that they want the single ad at the top to get two more impressions?

Really, it’s senseless.

Museum of Art Entrance at Balboa Park

How’s that for an incendiary title?  I suppose I should backtrack slightly and explain myself: during a recent trip to southern California, we stopped by Balboa Park. Great place, and it happened to have some wonderful things going on for children.  Acrobats, stencil drawing (Persian-style) on tile, block-painting (very lithographic).

My daughter loved it all, so therefore I loved it.

Until we hit the SD MOA, that is. We were greeted at the door by a cheerful woman, welcoming us in.  “Entry is free,” she informed us, “but no cameras and no drinks. You have to leave your bags at the front.” With this, she gestured to a side room where there was a check-in service.

Mind you, I was carrying my SLR with three lenses. Full replacement cost would have been near $4000.  I’m not leaving it with some clerk, so out I go.  Denied an opportunity because of a senseless policy.  What, I’m going to take pictures of their works?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why they make the rule.  Flash photography hurts older paintings, and water can cause great damage. I’ll give them that 90% of people have no idea how to turn off their flash, but I’m not one of them.

So here’s the thing: just like with DRM, the rule is punishing the honest. I have an SLR – it’s easy to turn off the flash.  A pocket camera that they couldn’t see?  Much harder to turn it off, which is why so few people do. Add that people won’t give up their camera if it’s small enough to sneak by, and the rule effectively sets them up for *only* flash photography to be taken inside. By amateurs, who won’t care about the effects. The people who care, who might actually support their cause?

Out on the street.

To add insult to injury, I then went to the Museum of Photographic Arts, which also houses sensitive works. Get this: they *trust* people to not damage the work.  Walk in with your bag, no prob.

So in my opinion, I have to say: the management of the SD MOA blows chunks.

Don’t get me wrong: I love the convenience of Amazon, but when it comes to quality listings and specialized knowledge I like to stick with the specialists. Like you.

Unfortunately, you don’t like me.  I live in another country, as far as you’re concerned.  Like our brothers & sisters in Puerto Rico or Hawaii, you add the “not us” tax.  Contiguous 48 states?  Free shipping!  Alaska?  Twenty bucks minimum, give or take. It’s probably worse in Hawaii.

I just wanted a monopod – figured I’d grab one & reward The Online Photographer at the same time.  Add on a head & a tabletop tripod and you’ve got my order.  And your prices: on par with everything Amazon offered, even a tad cheaper.

But with shipping?  12% more expensive.

And that’s why I order from Amazon every other month, but from you guys only once every other year.  It adds up, guys.

It adds up.

Little blue (bell-shaped) flowers

So, what would you do with this? It’s just not working for me…

Rather, it seems that there’s no buffer. Instead of taking shots until memory is filled up, it just takes ‘em one at a time. Which puts you at the mercy of the disk write speed. 

Even with a professional SD card, it’s painfully slow. Forget about using this with your kids…

The main things to take away:

[Distributors] are awarded a commission based upon the volume of product sold through their own sales efforts as well as that of their downline organization.

and

Independent distributors develop their organizations by either building an active customer base, who buy direct from the company, or by recruiting a downline of independent distributors who also build a customer base, thereby expanding the overall organization

So, the thing about this: it’s a marketing scheme.  The actual thing sold may be a legitimate product, but it’s the distribution scheme that’s I despise. Mainly, I hate the pressure tactics that are generally used. I hate the dishonesty that has to come with it.  I mean, Marketing is inherently dishonest already – pushing one’s viewpoint on the masses.  But they take it to a new level: “you can make millions” – “you can quit your job” – “we have the best/highest rated/awesomest widget on the market” – “only available now”.

No, definitely not a fan. This comes from experience: when I was younger and (most importantly) more desperate, I was suckered into joining one of these organizations.  It lasted about a month, until I realized that it was a huge amount of work for selling your soul (ethically speaking), taking advantage of friends/family, and very much like a cult.

So I’m peeved about this right now.  The reason being that I was suckered into (well, felt obligated into) sitting through another sales pitch. A trusted friend of the family who we’ve watched grow up – a young man now – has entered the world of finance.  But not with the reputable companies – no, with a company that exclusively uses the multi-level marketing approach.

When I was at the same point in my life many people sat through my attempts at sales, even though they had no desire or care. They gave me the time because they were nice, and they were willing to help out a little.  Now I’m in their position.

So the experience wasn’t that bad, but it was definitely nothing I’d go through for any other reason. Attempts to “inform” about finance (basic stuff, too) and investments.  Talking about stuff that I have known since high school (I suppose not everyone is so lucky).  That was pretty quick, and it was pretty obvious I didn’t care. Then came the push: “if you know of anyone who might need our service and refer them on, why not get paid?”  Bang, it went from basic product information to multi-level marketing.

For those who know my in my real life, you know that I’m pretty busy.  Two blogs, an impossible-to-kick photography habit, a full-time job, a business, a young child.  I had budgeted thirty minutes for this, expecting about half an hour on top of that spent in traffic.  This is a significant part of my evening, especially since I had to stay late at the full-time job due to this (no sense leaving early to go home to turn around & drive to this).

So in thirty minutes, what did they cover? About twenty minutes were spent on their products.  Another fifteen on describing sales (it felt quicker, but the watch doesn’t lie).

Now it’s over, and this is good.  Stress levels are returning to normal, and irritation is slowly subsiding. I still feel obligated to help out people like this, but I’m not sure that I have the strength to put up with more sales BS.

OK, enough griping.  Tomorrow: back to photography.

That’s it.  Period. I mention this only because a certain credit card company sent me an update to their terms this week with that exact phrase in it. Now mind you, I’ve had several credit cards over the last 10 years.  I’ve dropped several.  Each one that was dropped sent a letter like this ended up making the deal far worse: raised rates, adding annual fees, shorter period between issuing of bills and late fees, and so forth.

In this case, I received it from a company that somehow is the *only* company with which I deal that manages to occasionally not send bills in the mail, delay processing payments, make it hard to redeem bonuses/miles, etc.  In fact, due to their practices this is the only credit card that I’ve had to pay late fees on in the last fifteen years.

Now, I can see some doubters saying that it’s my own damn fault.  I mean, legally it’s up to me to make sure I’m aware of each billing date & to pay on time.  But doing business with a company is a partnership, if you will: they are obligated to let me know about what I am owed, and I am obligated to pay.  Blaming me for missing their lack of sending a statement is like sending a tourist to visit places in a high-crime area, and then blaming them for not seeing the guy with the gun on the side of the road.

Why yes, they did receive government funds to keep themselves afloat.  Coincidence?

Further, if I comment on anyone or complain about anyone’s actions, do not expect me to post their names or give links.  It’s not a matter of fearing lawsuits (although some might consider it stupid *not* to).  Rather, I wouldn’t do them the favor of giving them the free advertising.