lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

I'm a newcomer to this Forum but have already noticed a pattern of miscommunication that has led to jousting among participants. My concepts are based upon review of the Active Thread regarding the mark II versions of Sony's Full-Frame (abbrev. FE) a7 E-mt series of digital cameras.

I'd like to dedicate this topic to THE REFINEMENT OF COMMUNICATING OPINIONS & ASSERTIONS AS TO THE FUNCTIONS OR CAPABILITIES OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT.

PUT ANOTHER WAY, HOW CAN WE EFFECTIVELY QUALIFY OUR STATEMENTS REGARDING EQUIPMENT SUCH THAT THEY ARE COMMUNICATED CREDIBLY?

Obviously, the most I can hope that we accomplish is a set of suggested guidelines to more effectively communicate with each other. There won't be any "Diction Police," as there will always be newcomers, those who never review this thread, and those who just want to quickly state their opinions and don't have time or want to be bothered by any such suggestions.

To get things started, I'm going to give my suggestions. Readers should feel free to opine. I would imagine that the range of comments for each suggested guideline would be from "no way" to ineffective to ambiguous to further modification/refinement to "great idea!" All I request of others is to convey your comments courteously and constructively.

1. SHOW, DON'T TELL. This is a basic dictum in writing both fiction and non-fiction. This certainly is not always possible when discussing equipment functions or capabilities. One cannot, for instance, always present a photo regarding a failure of equipment to do something that's expected. No photo that I can conceive of can convey how poorly the autofocus function of a camera/lens combination does at tracking an a moving object. However, a photograph can be used as proof in some cases that a piece of equipment does work.

2. ONE SHOULD QUALIFY A STATEMENT AS TO THE ABILITY OR INABILITY OF A DEVICE TO FUNCTION BY ADDING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PHRASES:

a. "I arrived at this conclusion by using this equipment myself";
b. "I heard/read from such-and-such a source [e.g. a friend, a forum, a magazine, a website, manufacturer's user manual or sales pitch,] that this can/cannot be done with this equipment";
c. "I think that I heard/read (or as I recall) ... ";
d. "I surmise that this function is present/suboptimal/absent based on [either] my use or someone else's report of this function on a similar but different apparatus"; or
e. "I just pulled this statement out of my butt."

While I doubt anyone would use the 5th choice above, I believe that qualifying a statement by employing one of the above would lend its author more credibility and reduce the chatter about "bull-$h€t" artists. It also could result in reducing the volume of certain reader replies that ask the author HOW s/he arrived at such & such a conclusion.

Of course, it would be tedious and take too much time for someone to add one of these qualifiers to each of a number of assertions made in a single posting. For those individuals who "get on a roll," I suggest that use of a qualifying statement immediately preceding a paragraph or long list of assertions would usually be sufficient.

Well, that's it for now. I hope you'll find that reading this wasn't a waste of your time.

Leitz Loc: Solms

I would expect Admin to move this to Chit-Chat or the Attic!

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I dozed-off..................How did it finish??

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Lev, welcome to the Hog.
I think you are going to find that the Hog community is a lot more disfunctional than you are giving it credit for and the Hog is largely a group of 65+ year olds. It's kinda like the girls all dressed up for each other. It's all choir you are preaching to, not by any means a clean demographic sampling, let alone enough that are credible. The needs of 70 year olds is not the needs of the world, no matter how loudly one talks!
All that being said, even better luck coming to a consensus with a camera/s that very few have even seen, let alone actually used or own.
Again welcome and good luck trying to herd the cats!! :lol: :lol:
SS
PS, I only read about half of what you said before drifting off!!

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

As one of the 70+ who visit this forum I must say that......damn, can't remember what it was. Overall I think lev29 has a valid point, but to dismiss "e" so quickly is a disservice to us older members. As for me, any time I can get something out of my butt is usually a relief, if only temporarily. :thumbup:

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

lev29: First, I'd like to thank the 3 insomniacs for commenting <15 min. after I posted this @ 3 am CDT. Yeah, I bet at this time of night, my post would put most to sleep. I wish pleasant dreams to the 1st two who replied.

SharpShooter, I appreciate your response. Until I created this topic & the other one regarding the solicitation for subscribing to a Canadian photo rag, I was only following one topic, as mentioned above. In there, I don't believe I'm the only one under 65 and there's some character assassination going on. I believe my idea has merit, but no, I can't make a horse drink just because I brought him to the water. But I know one thing: I'm not the only participant in this forum who evaluates assertions. If the author doesn't explain how he reaches his conclusions but just asserts they are true, his credibility begins to drop in my eyes.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

"I think you are going to find that the Hog community is a lot more disfunctional than you are giving it credit for...."

Sharpshooter:

One of the problems that I have is getting my response into the conversation at the appropriate time. The conversation is on page 2 but by the time I type my response to what is being said on Page 2 and hit the send button the conversation is on page 4 and my comments look to be completely out of sync with what is currently being discussed. Am sure others have experienced the same problem. Not sure what the solution is. Also, I would hope that the opinions of all ages are represented in the discussions.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

"....I believe that qualifying a statement by employing one of the above would lend its author more credibility and reduce the chatter about "bull-$h€t" artists. It also could result in reducing the volume of certain reader replies that ask the author HOW s/he arrived at such & such a conclusion."

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

"pattern of miscommunication" leading to "jousting" :thumbup:

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

:thumbup: :thumbup: He should positively love The Attic!

Leitz Loc: Solms

Insomniacs?? I'm enjoying some late morning humour, myself! :lol:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Don't worry about it. That's just the way the system works. Use the Quote Reply feature, and we'll figure it out.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I appreciate your effort, but this is an informal forum, and people are not going to be using a checklist when they enter comments. It's helpful, of course, when people give specific reasons for their statements, but making that a universal practice isn't going to happen. Most posters are rather specific, but sometimes someone will ask for more details. Other people just run off at the mouth, and we have to fill in the blanks.

Variety is the spice of life.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Yes! :D

Singing Swan

Wow....and I think you should fix the government while you're at it and balance the budget and geez .... have a cuppa and relax!!!!!!

Didn't you ever think that the ones who cause you the headaches will never read such good advice in the first place!! Tilting at windmills, you are, so you oughta fit right in!!!!!