Well there aren't many Olypmus shooters on a Pentax forum, you could try and drum up some business on Canon, Nikin and Sony forums.

[jct us101]

I have been.

Try the lomography site and Leica.

[jct us101]

No way I don't want rich snobs on it!

:-D

[Adam]

Now 165 members and the posts are picking up slightly but still only around 100 a day on it.

That's still quite a few posts for a new website, I'd say.

[jct us101]

I'm glad you could comment on this thread, Adam, since you've been able to create such a successful forum around a camera. For some reason it just doesn't seem like that many to me, but I suppose that's because the other forums I've owned have had people who post a tad too much on it. How long did it take PF to start having more of the members make posts on the forum? It just feels empty when I log onto it and see that only 2 or 3 posts have been made in the last hour, or the last 3 hours, so I'm just trying to figure out how to speed that up if I even should do it.

[rparmar]

Wait six months and then see.

[jct us101]

Well I'm not sure that would help, by then it would be too late to change anything.

[rparmar]

Well I'm not sure that would help, by then it would be too late to change anything.

I have certain experience in web design and setting up community sites or those that wish to attract ongoing readers/subscribers. When I say "wait six months" I mean it. Sites do not build overnight, and only by seeing the trends over a certain length of time will you know how it is doing.

But in order to make this evaluation you need to have benchmarks and goals, as well as metrics set up. Otherwise, what are you measuring success against? A thorough marketing strategy also makes good sense.

This does not mean you do nothing for six months. But changing a site willy-nilly without a justifiable reason can do more harm than good. Your existing visitors do not want change every few days; they want stability.

Well, that's already a lot of free advice. Common sense is the hardest to find. And many people have no clue how the web works. Patience, planning and adaptability are all needed.

[jct us101]

How should I set the goals for it?

[lithos]

Lithos' Sarcastic photo website tips, after trying to google reviews for the K-7:

1) Copy-paste text from press releases and label them as "reviews" in the page header, even if the press release is release six months before the camera. Churnalism like this ensures you'll quickly climb to the number one hit on Google, even above the official manufacturer's website, as everyone'll think you've got some sort of sneaky insider working for you.

And you'll look like you're first with the review, and people'll disseminate that for you!

Of course, about half a second after the page has loaded, the viewer will realise what you've done, but it doesn't matter, as getting clicked on is what matters.

2) On clicks: get sponsors. This, my friend, is the brass ring. Imagine - Nikon sending you a D3 to play with, along with a dozen Nikon baseball caps, Nikon polo shirts, Nikon business card holders, Nikon ashtrays, Nikon home pregnancy test kits, Nikon furniture polish, Nikon oven cleaner, Nikon canned ham, and Nikon carpet tacks. (Note: Replace "Nikon" with "Canon" in this list, depending on who wins the bidding war for your site that month.)

3) Shortly after receiving that D3 and the "press kit," realise that Nikon is the most awesome brand camera ever made anywhere in the world.

4) Ethics, integrity, research, unbiased facts, clearly labelled opinion pieces: that's all old-journalism crap web-based tech-journalism doesn't need. It's for stuffy old hacks who write for newspapers, man - what you line your budgie cage with. Inverted pyramid - bah!

This is meant to be edgy, hip, new-school. That means sarcasm, and farming out reviews to your fifteen-year-old stoner nephew (call it gonzo journalism, which'll bring in the hipsters.)

The web is bringing democracy back to journalism! That means that any old crap is treated as a paradigm of people power! Oh, sure it's wrong, biased as hell, maybe even borderline crazy, but we should all be grateful for the fact that someone's challenging Big Media™.

5) When you have to actually do a review (possibly because Canon didn't send a batch of handmade Belgian chocolates with their latest DSLR, as a subtle hint) just take the camera, take a few frames of your cat in Auto mode, and say something deep and profound: "Yeah, it's pretty quiet, and the frame rate's fast." That's about as technical as you have to go. For the rest of the review, just list the spec sheet.

Pull a completely arbitrary number out of your arse for the final score, as long as it's between 7.5-10 (if scoring out of ten; remember, decimals make it look like you've thought it over) "Final Score: 8.5/10." Percentages allow for even greater faux-precision.

Any lower than 75% or equivalent risks you pissing off sponsors.

A review shouldn't take more than fifteen minutes to write (including time spent playing with the camera.)

6) Remember, it's a photo website, not a bloody gallery: you don't actually have to post any pictures. God, what are you now - a photographer? Well, yes, but not that sort of photographer.

7) And know the hierarchy of cameras! Bias towards Canon if you're going for the "pro" image. Towards Nikon if you're going for the old photo-dog image. Towards Oly and the 4/3 crowd if you want to be seen as young and trendy.

Whatever you choose, don't forget: it's always good to piss all over Pentax...