I know we've hashed this out a few times, but feelings can change and I have a few suggestions to make a confirmed identities system work better.

What do you think of..

Everyone on the forum has to add a portfolio link and their real name to their profile (at least first name.. or possibly first name and last initial.. for example).  Their name will be displayed under their user name but will NOT show publicly .. only to logged in users.  The user name is all that will show publicly.
The portfolio link would not be shown publicly (to help those who feel they have a niche they don't want copied) only to other logged in users of MSG.

Lastly.. for those who really feel for some reason that they need to hide their real name and port they can purchase that 'upgrade'.  What I'm thinking initially is $5.00/month .. I don't need the extra income from the forum but it would create a barrier for the trolls who just want to hide and for those who really feel it is important but still want to be part of the discussion it shouldn't be a big deal.  I'll donate half that amount to charity and keep the rest for the pain of getting this all working and keeping it in order.  The people who want to hide their identity will still have to prove their identity to me through an istock / Dreamstime / stocksy etc.. site mail. 

Why do this?
Well, frankly, I've been visiting another forum (about a different topic) that simply requires you to have your real name as your user name.. and the conversation there has been refreshingly positive and constructive.  It is a quite small forum so I'm guessing that has a lot to do with it and I don't have the illusion that it will remove all negative discussion here but I certainly think it will help.  Hidden identities are starting to feel a bit 'last decade' internet culture, especially for a website that is trying to be a 'professional' meeting place.

As a trial .. I thought we could see how it goes for a month.  What do you think?  Dumb idea?  Good idea?  I'm open to hearing people's thoughts.

Might be some backlash from it but I know I don't mind.  Test it out.

*edit*

Of course it might be a bit redundant to those that have their name already there like mine and have it again underneath.

I'd prefer real identities, but I'm sympathetic to those contributors who wish to remain anonymous given the actions of some agencies. Perhaps a smaller more token fee would be better.

I have absolutely no problem with my real name (Boris Jaroscak) being visible anywhere.

But I - more or less - understand point of view of some people who want to discuss anonymously. Maybe they are  being afraid of enviousness from some people, or competition, or maybe that some "bad" stock agencies will read their posts and harm them in some way for their opinions expressed here, etc.

Btw. when talking about various monthly fees. I would be actually willing to pay monthly fee if that fee will make my user signature visible to anyone/public (now only logged in users can see signatures) which would be good for SEO of my personal portfolio websites(s) presented here.
Don�t you consider also such update to paid membership leaf?

The real name would be hidden to protect the search results for people who don't want to mix up their mircostock business with their regular photography business (or whatever else the case may be)

I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to lose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity.  Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc.  If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names.  Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with.  If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.
But.. if it's still a problem, like I states in the first post - people could still choose to hide their identities.  They'd just have to prove it was really important to them by buying an upgrade.

@jareso, Yeah I should make the signature show for premium members.

Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.

exactly

Well I'm out too, bye

wow, that was quick.  I was just throwing the idea out there to hear thoughts and opinions and you deleted your account...

I'm very interested in trying this out and from the poll it looks like there are others as well but I'm going to listen to the feedback people have first.

We know some stock sites have booted people for saying things they don't like - the name "Locke" comes to mind these days and iStock has been more tolerant than one or two other agencies.
I guess allowing agencies to check up on who is saying what about them is a good way to ensure that we only get "Woo-Yay" threads here from now on. Apart, of course, from cases where  people are not members of a particular agency and will still be free to criticise it. So if this thread was sparked by the exchanges about Stocksy, then using real names isn't likely to change anything.

I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal.  There were many public people more vocal about it than him.  Also, having identities shown haven't stopped people from disagreeing with what sites are doing.  I deleted lots of images from my port in protest as well as did many other public people.  The difference between an agency forum and this one that on this forum, posts aren't deleted for being critical of an agency.

This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional. 

Well I'm out too, bye

Me too

removed

Quote from: leaf on May 29, 2013, 03:08

I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to loose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity.  Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc.  If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names.  Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with.  If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.

I really can't believe you wrote that or even started this thread. In case you've been on another planet for the last few months you should be aware that some bloke called Sean recently lost an income of about $400K per year through posting 'negative but professional' posts on here and elsewhere. Maybe it's just me but I'd call that a pretty "big issue". Duh.

BTW __ it's 'lose' not 'loose'.

But that hasn't stopped Sean from posting with his real name.  I also added a bold highlight to a part you may have missed.

re:spelling.  It's never been my strong point.

But that hasn't stopped Sean from posting with his real name. 

It's a bit late now isn't it?

I didn't miss your emboldened bit either. I just thought it irrelevant. Given the chance to turn the clock back I suspect that someone would have chosen to keep their head down, continue working with said agency and keep picking up the money.

Quote from: leaf on May 29, 2013, 03:53

I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal. 

How do you know why Sean was booted? Were you the Getty manager who made the decision or, alternatively, have you had his reasons in writing explaining it to you? Or are you just speculating? I don't think even Sean truly understands what happened and why. I certainly don't.

I have no idea why he was booted other than what he posted on his blog and on here.  But from what he wrote, I felt the reasons were more than simply a forum post.

Did they say why?

Well, it took a while for me to get reasons, as mostly I was told that discussion would not be �productive�.  However, I was told they did not like how I handled the Google Drive situation, on and off-site.

Also, they did not appreciate the deactivation addition to my Greasemonkey script.  The most odd part of this was that I was accused of leading the February 2nd deactivation day.  Odd (and a complete lie), because I didn�t start it, never said I was going to participate it, and never actively encouraged anyone to participate in it, although I did encourage everyone to study the available  facts and make a decision on what they felt was appropriate action.  In fact, I sent several emails the week prior to iStockphoto/Getty managers to initiate a phone conversation, thinking I could provide suggestions on how to defuse the situation.

They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the �spirit of the exclusivity agreement�.  I�m not sure what the issue was there, as I am not an indentured servant, and if I want to investigate things, that should not be threatening to them.  It seems they either see this new venture as a danger to them, or are just vindictive towards anyone involved with it, for some reason.  Looking at this now, I think they mistakenly assumed, or were told, that I was a bigger part of the picture there than I actually was.

Also, when I said that this seemed like something personal, I was told it was just �business�.  Since it affects my family, obviously I find it a bit more personal than they do; iStockphoto and Getty provide nearly all of my income.

So, it appeared they were never interested in a discourse at all.  It was just a way to cut me off.   At least I got a phone call.

http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/