catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

I can appreciate the abundance of knowledge on tap here at the HOG and appreciate mostly what gets to the point and comes from the actual writer, but...

If people could state there expertise/ back round or general experience it would be of great benefit to every one in my personal opinion when posting multiple pages of technical information.

Copy/ paste Professors tend to mix ideas from multiple sources, get ideas crossed and certainly take to the soap box with their shot guns loaded while rambling on at length. When the technical insignificance exceeds two pages or more I cringe...

Simplicity in teaching has a lot going for it when trying to get a point across, especially if you are who you Profess to be...

(photojournalist/ technical director/ designer- engineer)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

But where would that leave the rest of us - those with only real-life experience?

I've been using a DSLR since the 1970s, and I've gained a lot of knowledge by reading posts on UHH. I also do a lot of online searching. I don't hold a degree in Aperture Appreciation, but I have accumulated some information along the way.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I've been playing with cameras since the 50's (even before High School), photo retail and shoot weddings etc in the 70's, BTW SLR's in the 70's no DSLR's then, I'm still learning, Bob.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Information from a forum comes from all sources- you get what you get. If the topic is of no interest, too long or too technical it's easy to walk on by. If you want concise, proven information there are plenty of "cited" sources on the Internet. I personally have gotten a wealth of information from UHH members - much of it from their experience, not their certifications.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

Proof in knowledge imparted is most valuable when backed by experience, and there is plenty here among fellow Hoggers. Opinions are usually backed up by facts. No reason to be suspicious of advice given here and no need to prove knowledge except by examples, which are freely shared here.

srt101fan

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Not really,

It takes only a moment to state that you have 40 years experience, were Ansel Adams assistant once or have a 6 year degree...

More and more I see pasted copyright material, stitched together into 6 pages of rocket fuel science.

I really think ideas can be condensed into a more core idea. A link to in depth material is fine but, if the goal for the experienced is to teach then, "who you are" is important.

Posts on observations, questions or enlightenment's are much different than what I am talking about. When a book is literally published in the forum and, you check the posters bio with no personal information listed I get suspicious.

It really is a matter, much like publishing on your own web page... if you want to be considered credible.

The HOG would elevate itself and reduce some of the tabloid style trolling that is pretty common as of late...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

On another rant, it would be a good idea to at least glance at some of the answers already given, as well as thoroughly reading the original post. When a thread goes more than two pages it is very likely that your answer has already been supplied in some form, or even thoroughly refuted as well. And try to stick to the original question or statement (although tangents are sometimes very entertaining).

PS: I admit guilt on all counts

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

DirtFarmer

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

I completely agree. A perfect example of what you're saying is a thread that asks a specific question about a specific camera, let's say a Nikon, and the first response begins something like this, "I've never owned a Nikon but...". Now, without knowing it, that individual has very simply qualified and categorized the basis and experience of their response and makes it easy to determine if you want to keep reading or move on to the next. So simple.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Part of the problem with simply stating bio information is that some people have been taking the same photograph for 20 years. In other words, they thought they learned it all during the first year and have never progressed beyond that point. It's more than how long we've been taking photographs or what background we profess to have, the proof is in the images we take.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Just ask for the profs to post sample images. You will immediately be able to separate the copy/paste guys from the real deal. Copy/paste guy in rarely take good or even mediocre pictures.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

You don't have to have a background to know the right answer, and having a background may just give you the impression you have the right answer when it is actually obsolete info. Also people advise what worked for them, it may or may not work for you. Google is your friend.

You can ask for help here and get good info and bad info and you will have to sift through all of it. It's your choice to verify the info through experimentation, common sense or your own research, to get the best answer for you.

For example, if you have a medical condition it behooves you to research all you can about it. If you take a doctor's word for it and do nothing else you can get good advice or bad advice, but you may never know which it is, because there are good doctors and bad doctors.

An assistant to Ansel Adams might know how to take a good black and white pic with an 8x10 or 4x5 film camera and do some dodging and burning in the dark room. Ansel Adams took very mediocre pics with color 35mm film because the processing was out of his control. It's like turning to Thomas Edison for help with an ipad.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Curious. Why would you think posted background info will be more accurate than their technical insignificance?

(photojournalist/ technical director/ marathon runner/ film actor/ stage director/ policy analyst/ former President/ Vogue Cover Girl [October 1918])