http://gophoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#ab16890f-ba2a-4176-99af-a5ae8a7b69a5 >> I was suckered into thinking so for awhile...but I have had it proven to me over and over and over again, that this is just a business and that is the sole motivation of the company.<< I've sure had a lot of opinion about this over the years. I'll say, in tribe.net's defense, that if it were *only* about making the gap now, the NSA wouldn't have picked this flaming turd off the porch and nursed it. True enough that various handlers have made mistakes in the obvious drive to make it solvent as a business - but they were mistakes, dumb and obvious ones, and they failed as a result. If you examine the history of tribe.net, you'll likely come to the same conclusion I have: it really *is* about the love. The money - she ain't there. Never has been. Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:08:04 GMT http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#ab16890f-ba2a-4176-99af-a5ae8a7b69a5 Lokifreign 2009-06-10T12:08:04Z http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#6d2eba13-509f-428f-81f4-54c71af1d1f5 The last one was Facebook backing off on a change in their TOS, in Feb 18 2009. They also backed off implementing the Beacon feature in Nov of 2007. That feature was referred to by some as the stalker feature. These are just a few major examples. It DOES happen, especially when the customers get vocal enough. Other examples are Amazon's issues with cataloging books, which they changed after bad publicity. Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:15:16 GMT http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#6d2eba13-509f-428f-81f4-54c71af1d1f5 Scott 2009-04-21T19:15:16Z http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#c9d059bd-097b-495e-aa56-2af6db9c6f23 > Both Myspace and Facebook backed off implementing features > after getting much bad feedback from members. Which features? Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:50:34 GMT http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#c9d059bd-097b-495e-aa56-2af6db9c6f23 Stumbling into the Void / Joseph Dunphy 2009-04-21T18:50:34Z http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#05c969fc-63b8-4670-a1cd-4252318429b7 Having read the whole post, not just her words, I think she just made an honest typo, or poorly worded her phrases. In fact,if you mark a photo friends only, it isn't viewable by anyone except your friends. I've tested this feature, and while images are viewable, friends only do not show up. I think that might be what she was trying to say. As for changing features after they get implemented, it does happen. Both Myspace and Facebook backed off implementing features after getting much bad feedback from members. And tribe, which is smaller and has even shallower pockets, would react even faster. Remember, there isn't really a Management set per se, just a few friends who banded together to save Tribe. People who were vested in Tribe emotionally and mentally, and wanted it to stay around. And photos are a big part of sites nowadays. They want to increase membership, and one way is making content available from searches, to funnel or lure new users onto Tribe. Limiting content is not in their interest, and in fact, they do not do it at this time. That's why there are so many old defunct tribes around with no members. Their content still lives and lures new members onto tribe. Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:33:00 GMT http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#05c969fc-63b8-4670-a1cd-4252318429b7 Scott 2009-04-21T06:33:00Z http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#068bfbf3-7d49-4237-8bd7-0a7a4b038e45 all these social networking sites, including Tribe are a business, with a motivation that is solely to make money. If we really let ourselves think, for a second, that anything else is going on, we will just bang our heads against the wall. however selfish their motivations are, it doesn't mean that the format it creates doesn't allow us to have some good interactions...but no one should make the mistake of thinking that Tribe or the other social networking sites really care about us as people. They don't. I was suckered into thinking so for awhile...but I have had it proven to me over and over and over again, that this is just a business and that is the sole motivation of the company. Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:20:46 GMT http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#068bfbf3-7d49-4237-8bd7-0a7a4b038e45 Jon 2009-04-20T10:20:46Z http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#c3b0197c-0c3a-4b9b-9910-af43034a3121 . I was reading a post by a member of Tribe's staff, and it looks like she might have spilled the beans on a policy change that's about to happen. Quoting her post (link to said post follows) >> if I have a tribe page, from my blog, some discussion or >> my photo album, can I paste that URL into a normal email >> frame, send it and the friend can open the link from there >> or do they get directed to the tribe welcome page and asked >> to become members first? > It depends -- a page from your blog can be viewed if it's not > marked "friends only"; photos, however, cannot be viewed by > non-members. You can test this yourself by logging out and > then attempting to view your link. http://bugs.tribe.net/thread/2d460ad8-224a-4df0-8abf-4c949c016c65#d21b0f90-a546-4a6b-bd63-9553e74f6086 At present, of course, this is not the case, so why would an employee of Tribe, the woman who represents the company over on Getsatisfaction.com http://getsatisfaction.com/tribe and so presumably would be in the know about such things, make such a mistake when photos posted by members have always been visible to the general public, at least since I joined in 2007? She is, after all, an official company representative, the voice of Tribe, somebody who could hardly be expected to explain Tribe's actions without knowing what Tribe has done. A simple, logical explanation for this discrepancy, that fits in with past performance: Tribe decided to change the settings on its site so that member photos would only be visible to those logged in, and then got overly optimistic about the timetable in which this change would occur. Carolyn, being the spokesperson, was told about the change. The development team then fell behind schedule, as they always seem to, with the result that Carolyn was left reporting a change before it occurred, but after it had been scheduled to take place, the sending of that notice to the spokesperson saying "Umm, Carolyn, we haven't done that yet, so don't tell people about it" also falling behind schedule. Why would Tribe implement such a change? Shortsighted, bottom line greed - in the short run, doing so would cut Tribe's bandwidth consumption and expenses. In the long run, doing so would also cut deeply into the profits, because the site, having lost its visual appeal to the lurkers - the vast bulk of the visitors on any site - would see far fewer visits, reducing its ad revenue. But then, as you might have noticed, Tribe's management doesn't tend to think long term. So, what does one do? Having been on the Internet for a good, long time, I'll start by saying what one doesn't do - one doesn't "wait and see". I've seen an endless stream of users wait until after a new policy was announced to start a campaign against it. In none of these cases have I ever seen management give ground, even as their refusal to do so has visibly sent their part of the company into a death spiral (eg. Yahoo 360). The reason is simple. For management to give in, after they've made a public announcement, is for management to lose face. Managers don't like to do that. If the users begin the campaign before the announcement, however, management is left with what it needs - plausible deniability. Having backed off from the intended severely unpopular change, it can pretend that it never intended to make such a change, and as far as most of the world knows, they're telling the truth. The users get what they want, management gets what it wants, and nobody is seriously harmed in the exchange, as each defines harm for himself. So, what I'm hoping is that users will be bold enough to get paste the cliche and make themselves heard, soon. We're looking at a very small change that we would seem to have had advance warning on, just through sheer dumb luck. Our window of opportunity would seem to be very narrow, indeed. I hope that we will not be so rigid in our responses, that we miss it. , Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:02 GMT http://GoPhoto.tribe.net/thread/16d4fc77-3bd6-4a49-b142-13f224c2bf66#c3b0197c-0c3a-4b9b-9910-af43034a3121 Stumbling into the Void / Joseph Dunphy 2009-04-19T22:39:02Z