Rehunt for Red September? (because October is days away)
Posted by Andrew Bailey in General on the Big Photo Hunt community board, .
To begin with, I understand that financial support is the lifeblood of any site. And I’m not writing this to give Ken any grief. Let's be clear: I love what he’s doing and believe his intention is admirable in every respect. For that to go forward, this endeavor needs our support. It has to have it. Understood.
But—and isn’t there always one of those lurking about?—there’s a feature I’ve never used that recently caught my eye. And it has a problem attached: The “Rehunt” button.
What is it? It puts your work back in play once in a given week. On its face, this is a great idea for those of us who schedule an early post, as encouraged by the system. It allows us to make sure, sensibly later in the week, that our work isn’t buried under later posts. And the "once per week" limitation keeps the hyper-competitive from gumming up the intent. The button even goes inactive when the week of its debut ends. Super idea.
Oh, right. That “but” I started to note: It's a subscribers-only feature.
Why is this a problem? Whenever you put a scale, a standard, or a number in play, it begins a ranking process. It sorts an impression of value among participants and offerings, as assigned values always will. Photographers will see their work alongside others and feel additional, comparative confidence, or disappointment, especially the newer among us, depending on that outcome.
It's just human nature. Again, heightened among those who don’t have their feet or confidence set. And even among some who will, but who aren’t immune to the +/- of a popularity contest.
When any group can put their thumb on that scale, and influence that number in a way not open to others, it undermines the sense of a community of equals, invites the thought that the system is gamed, that an advantage is enjoyed that has meaning within the community. However well-intentioned, money now buys you twice the exposure and likelihood of being noticed and encouraged.
Buying visibility is very different from buying more gallery room or a different color banner (I’ll come to that). It lends an impression of skill or appreciation that wasn't born from equal footing and opportunity. A bad idea, I think, however unintended.
Is there a restorative compromise? Maybe, and here comes the banner bit. You could have different tiers of participation noted by color. Maybe a yellow banner for contributors and a blue one for those who can’t contribute financially, or are still deciding if this place is for them. Note the number of their contributed photos, maybe. Any number of ways to let everyone know their likes or comments are coming from committed and/or seasoned members of the photography family here.
The advantage of a color system is that it recognizes the perk and transparently adjusts expectations. If you’re a blue member, you’re only getting one bite at the “consider this” apple. Your numbers will likely reflect that, and you’re better off comparing them with the other blue numbers/members. It might even make the yellow members pay closer attention to your work, nudging you toward joining their ranks.
Sure, it’s a caste system, but it’s an honest one. As things stand at present (and again, I have no doubt this was done without any misleading or bad intent), the notice is rigged, and the system of encouragement is compromised. That’s going to dawn on people once they stick around a while. And they probably won't like it. I don’t want anything to spoil the experience here, if I can help it, which is the only reason I'm bringing this to the table.
What do you think?