Here at Inside Imaging, one of the things we are most encouraged by is both the quantity and the quality of reader input.
We enjoy far more dialogue with and between our readers than any other local photographic website. That some of those reader-contributors are well-known and highly regarded among their peers in the industry adds to that sense that we must be doing something right.
Over more than a decade, we have only had to remove Readers Comments a handful of times, when they have ‘gone the person’ rather than the issue, or been potentially defamatory. And not only are our readers happy to contribute to a dialogue at Inside Imaging, they are civil to one another and to us publishers alike. Unlike, say, the constant sniping and nastiness in the Comments section of say, Petapixel (‘you stinkin’ Sony shill’) or DPReview (‘you idiot Nikon fanboi’).
Likewise, our Readers Poll has consistently been well-supported. Sometimes when the question is a bit ho-hum we get a weaker response, but for the most part, we get a good sample of what the local photo community is thinking on any given issue.
We don’t believe that in the past results have been grossly manipulated. (Although we suspect there were are few ‘ring-ins’ recently approving IDEA blowing all the industry’s cash on the Board members’ businesses and then shutting down.).
So it is with a combination of amusement and disappointment that we have had to take down our last Readers Poll and suspend polling until further notice. Some clown – or perhaps a whole troupe of clowns – who have an interest in promoting the controversial changes at the AIPP have decided to corrupt the results of our latest Poll which asked:
Will the AIPP’s new structural changes benefit the Australian professional photographic community?
The results are incredible (as in unbelievable), with a shonky 98 percent voting Yes. Instead of the hundreds of votes we usually receive for a normal poll, Yes votes for the reconstitution of the AIPP numbered in the 1000s! We call BS on that.
The Readers Comments on the issue we’ve had from a range of well-known professional photographers were universally critical of the changes, calling them unconstitutional/illegal, wrong-headed and destructive.
Our polling software used to stop people from voting multiple times from the same address, but it appears that since the introduction of the European Union digital privacy laws, that feature has been switched off. We will hold off on new polls until we find a better polling plug-in which prevents this kind of manipulation.
Why anyone would see this kind of petty vandalism as a useful way to spend a portion of their time on earth is anyone’s guess. As an adult, it’s hard to understand the thinking behind such a move, so perhaps it’s the work of more child-like minds.
Meanwhile, the AIPP Board itself seems to have gone deep into the bunker. We followed up for a response to a range of questions put in Readers Comments by ex-AIPP office holders such as Melissa Neumann, Hilary Wardhaugh, Malcolm Mathieson, Kevin O’Daly, Eric Victor and others, but didn’t even get the courtesy of a ‘No Comment’.
In one word – pathetic.
– Keith Shipton