login info join!
Forums > General Industry > OMP New Look , Should MM Update as well? Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


Up until recently omp (onemodelplace) looked terrible, which likely led to the site being so dead. Anyways, I was recently there for some reason of which I cannot recall, but I noticed that they have done a major overhaul and upgraded the site big time.

It inspired me enough that I actually updated my profile and portfolio on the site, though sadly It seems that it has not brought back the masses quite yet. For Example, I did a search and within 50 miles of me only a few models had logged in within the last 2 months, Most had been inactive for 6 months to a year at least.

Anyways, my point behind the post is not to promote omp, but to bring up another point. Should MM look at upgrading to a more modern look as well? Personally I think that it would be a great idea, but im curious what everyone else thinks.
Dec 12 12 11:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9,304
Los Angeles, California, US


Hmm. I'm actually really happy with MMs format.

What would you like to improve?
Dec 12 12 11:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ForeverFotos
Posts: 6,618
Indianapolis, Indiana, US


OMP who?
http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-045.gif
Dec 12 12 11:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


I think you answered your own question.

OMP "upgraded" their look and nobody is there to see it. MM has this look (whatever that is) and it's actually being used. Which is more effective?

OMP has always believed in style over substance so it doesn't surprise me. Though admittedly, I haven't been on the site in about 10 years.

Now, I'd love MM to fix certain things but I wouldn't want MM to feel it needs to emulate omp or any other site just for some cosmetic makeover.
Dec 12 12 11:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DWShoots
Posts: 293
San Antonio, Texas, US


AM Photography wrote:
Up until recently omp (onemodelplace) looked terrible, which likely led to the site being so dead. Anyways, I was recently there for some reason of which I cannot recall, but I noticed that they have done a major overhaul and upgraded the site big time.

It inspired me enough that I actually updated my profile and portfolio on the site, though sadly It seems that it has not brought back the masses quite yet. For Example, I did a search and within 50 miles of me only a few models had logged in within the last 2 months, Most had been inactive for 6 months to a year at least.

Anyways, my point behind the post is not to promote omp, but to bring up another point. Should MM look at upgrading to a more modern look as well? Personally I think that it would be a great idea, but im curious what everyone else thinks.

As long as they don't further inhibit the use of the site on an iPad such as not being able to upload images.

Dec 12 12 11:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,036
Sisters, Oregon, US


Personally, I think OMP's new look 'Sucks'.   And, IMHO, it's far less user friendly and functional than the old one.  I note that the old site is still operational and generally I prefer it to their 'new look'.  So, if fancy looks is what they are 'pi**ing away' my dues on, I'm not thrilled.  One example - you can't do a 'global search' for an omp model.  You can only search in one state or province at a time.  A PITA if you are trying to locate a model but aren't sure what state she's in.

I'm not sure why there was the 'exodus' from omp in the first place.  But, I think you are premature in jumping to the conclusion that it was because of their "look".

There have been recent threads in the forums here about "Facebook" taking away business from MM. 

Frankly, I'm far less impressed by fancy looks than by function.

"Perfect is the enemy of good"
Dec 12 12 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Masamune Productions
Posts: 18
Binghamton, New York, US


One update that would be nice would be some kind of comment tracker or newsfeed update, not so people can flood eachother with fake comments, but so beautiful images that deserve notice might find its way to more viewers.
Dec 12 12 12:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 12,834
Houston, Texas, US


I'm just happy we haven't seen Curveball in a little while due to site crashes.
Dec 12 12 12:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Piscis Noctis
Posts: 10,997
Santa Rosa, California, US


FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I'm just happy we haven't seen Curveball in a little while due to site crashes.

+1

Dec 12 12 12:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 20,428
Portland, Oregon, US


AM Photography wrote:
Anyways, my point behind the post is not to promote omp, but to bring up another point. Should MM look at upgrading to a more modern look as well? Personally I think that it would be a great idea, but im curious what everyone else thinks.

Well, deign work takes time from skilled workers.  That costs $$$.  $$$ means that MM would need more revenue.  More revenue might mean MM charging for membership.  No, thank you.

Besides, I can think of tons of other "enhancements" I'd like to see on MM before I'd see a new, slicker interface.  Like, for example, an improved mail feature, including deliver to my regular e-mail in-tray, the usage of distribution lists, the ability to change font style, color, size, etc., the ability to attach files, etc.

Dec 12 12 02:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,002
New York, New York, US


C h a r l e s  D wrote:
Hmm. I'm actually really happy with MMs format.

Ditto!

Dec 12 12 02:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,002
New York, New York, US


FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I'm just happy we haven't seen Curveball in a little while due to site crashes.

We can agree on this...!   big_smile

Dec 12 12 02:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Managing Light
Posts: 1,719
Salem, Virginia, US


AM Photography wrote:
... but I noticed that they have done a major overhaul and upgraded the site big time.

Style over substance!

I'm happy with MM:  IB, don't fix stuff that ain't broke.

Dec 12 12 02:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


MM is in the process of moving to a wider format.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st17811847

It makes me wonder what other changes may be coming.


---------
EDIT: When the changes do actually hit the server, can we get some of the old Atari games instead of curveball? Space Invaders? Asteroids? Frogger?
Dec 12 12 03:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kev Lawson
Posts: 6,293
Daytona Beach, Florida, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I think you answered your own question.

OMP "upgraded" their look and nobody is there to see it. MM has this look (whatever that is) and it's actually being used. Which is more effective?

OMP has always believed in style over substance so it doesn't surprise me. Though admittedly, I haven't been on the site in about 10 years.

Now, I'd love MM to fix certain things but I wouldn't want MM to feel it needs to emulate omp or any other site just for some cosmetic makeover.

about 100,000 others that left omp and never looked back

Dec 12 12 03:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,412
Antioch, California, US


AM Photography wrote:
[...]Anyways, my point behind the post is not to promote omp, but to bring up another point. Should MM look at upgrading to a more modern look as well? Personally I think that it would be a great idea, but im curious what everyone else thinks.

O.M.G. Do Not encourage the wonks at IB to "update" the site.

They can just barely keep the site running with only minor changes, if they turned their "programmers" (actually, the computer club at the local middle school) loose with anything major we would be lucky to see "Curveball" for the next year.

Dec 12 12 03:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 836
Orange, California, US


Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Personally, I think OMP's new look 'Sucks'.   And, IMHO, it's far less user friendly and functional than the old one.  I note that the old site is still operational and generally I prefer it to their 'new look'.  So, if fancy looks is what they are 'pi**ing away' my dues on, I'm not thrilled.  One example - you can't do a 'global search' for an omp model.  You can only search in one state or province at a time.  A PITA if you are trying to locate a model but aren't sure what state she's in.

I'm not sure why there was the 'exodus' from omp in the first place.  But, I think you are premature in jumping to the conclusion that it was because of their "look".

There have been recent threads in the forums here about "Facebook" taking away business from MM. 

Frankly, I'm far less impressed by fancy looks than by function.

"Perfect is the enemy of good"

First off, I am not a fan of their new look either.
I find the new image uploader a tremendous pain in the ass and use the Old site all the time.
It is possible to search for models globally simply by using their name or omp number.
I much prefer omp over any of the other sites because they feature 100% of the traveling models I photograph, and they charge for membership.
The exodus from omp, I think, can be directly laid on the inability to use it properly since the renovation began with the new owners in 2009.
The new CEO in 2009 actually promoted members to join facebook and network through there rather than the site he was CEO of. He also merged omp and istudio, making it possible for paying omp members to move there portfolios, intact, to istudio, a free site.
He was replaced in December of 2011.
The tremendous growth of MM is directly related to the free sites here and in no way caused by omp being an inferior site.
I am on omp most of the day and have pushed that red "feedback" button probably more times than most have even logged in.
The feedback answer is most always the same "we're sorry".
I have been watching Photographers and models leave omp steadily for a long time and if I happen to ask them why it is usually the same "too hard to navigate" answer.
Personally I do not see the "new OMP" as any easier and think members will just keep on leaving, too tired of the hassles to even stick around.
When I mention omp and updating their sites to models it is always the same answer, "I don't get any work there".
Naturally they don't get work there if they never update. If they do not update in 180 days there is no way for members to contact them through the omp system.
I will continue to promote omp as I have in the past because of those aforementioned models, many of which are here as well, and the friendships I have made there.
I do not know if all the money spent to change omp will have been a good investment, but I will stick around and see what happens at least until my existing membership expires.

Dec 12 12 03:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


A lot of you seem like the same sort of people that complain every time facebook changes something... I happen to like change and constantly evolving websites. I like the sites that I frequent to be nice to look at.

I should note, My comments regarding OMP's new look were really only regarding the new look itself, not the functionality or lack their of. omp and MM both have little annoyance, so does every camera body ever made.

But I also agree with those of you who stated that IB can barely keep MM running. They need to update their hosting situation so that they can handle normal daily use. Seems like every day that I have some slow loading or issues loading the site. That said, I think that a lot of that could have to do with the age of the template/code that they are using.

I should preface this by saying that I am a Web Designer so I know a little about what I am talking about here. But I think that updating the site to a new template or look that can take advantage of new technologies could go a long way to improve the way things run around here. The old addage, Adapt or Die comes to mind.
Dec 12 12 06:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 7,757
Olney, Maryland, US


AM Photography wrote:
A lot of you seem like the same sort of people that complain every time facebook changes something... I happen to like change and constantly evolving websites. I like the sites that I frequent to be nice to look at.

I really don't have the time or concentration to constantly learn new interfaces.

I like MM.  I don't like omp especially since omp changed right after I renewed.

Dec 12 12 06:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


Mark Salo wrote:
I like MM.  I don't like omp especially since omp changed right after I renewed.

Well Im not saying that they should make major changes on a monthly basis, just that maybe one big update to bring the site up to more a more modern look and feel, add some highly requested features, and take advantage of new web technologies that can help the site run smoother would be a good idea.

As I mentioned, Adapt or die.

Also, what are all you people talking about omp memberships? I have a free account there and have never paid a thing. Has something changed since I signed up? As far as I know its just as easy to get an account here as it is there.

Dec 12 12 06:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,036
Sisters, Oregon, US


AM Photography wrote:
As I mentioned, Adapt or die.

Well, now.  Who's dyin?  Not MM.

Who would emphasize ditzels over function?

Would you replace your car if a tail light bulb burned out?

Dec 12 12 07:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,351
Carmel, California, US


isn't the real difference between omp and MM is that on MM all the pornographers on the site have to quietly network whereas on omp they can do all their casting calls out in the open?
Dec 12 12 07:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 11,532
Atlanta, Georgia, US


But I thought server errors were the next big thing, and MM has been serving up 500s for a very long time now.
Dec 12 12 07:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Well, now.  Who's dyin?  Not MM.

Who would emphasize ditzels over function?

Would you replace your car if a tail light bulb burned out?

The same thing could have been said for MySpace and Yahoo at one point during the last decade. Now both are afterthoughts. I'm not saying to emphasize ditzels over function, but what on earth makes you think you cant have one with the other? I mean if everything is going to work as intended, wouldn't you rather have a  site that looks good and functions good?

Dec 12 12 07:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Moore Photo Graphix
Posts: 5,288
Washington, District of Columbia, US


AM Photography wrote:
A lot of you seem like the same sort of people that complain every time facebook changes something... I happen to like change and constantly evolving websites. I like the sites that I frequent to be nice to look at.

I should note, My comments regarding OMP's new look were really only regarding the new look itself, not the functionality or lack their of. omp and MM both have little annoyance, so does every camera body ever made.

But I also agree with those of you who stated that IB can barely keep MM running. They need to update their hosting situation so that they can handle normal daily use. Seems like every day that I have some slow loading or issues loading the site. That said, I think that a lot of that could have to do with the age of the template/code that they are using.

I should preface this by saying that I am a Web Designer so I know a little about what I am talking about here. But I think that updating the site to a new template or look that can take advantage of new technologies could go a long way to improve the way things run around here. The old adage, Adapt or Die comes to mind.

What good is having a new interface, if people aren't able to navigate without hassles, or it take too long to load wherever they access it. The issue that my dad has with hotmail is that the new interface is hard for him to navigate. He remembered when it was as easy to use in the past. At his age, he doesn't need to his internet experience to be more complex. Then again, people don't want their internet experience to be more a p.i.t.a. Hence the phrase if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!

Dec 12 12 07:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Cooley Photography
Posts: 450
Allendale, Michigan, US


You touched on the problem of omp. They leave poeple profiles up that haven,t updated or visit the site in years.  I also checked models in my area... and over half have not been on the sight in over six years.   I hope MM takes this fact and does not fall into the same trap..   greater numbers doesn,t  mean greater service.
Dec 12 12 07:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Cooley Photography
Posts: 450
Allendale, Michigan, US


You touched on the problem of omp. They leave poeple profiles up that haven,t updated or visit the site in years.  I also checked llamas in my area... and over half have not been on the sight in over six years.   I hope MM takes this fact and does not fall into the same trap..   greater numbers doesn,t  mean greater service.
Dec 12 12 07:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


Moore Photo Graphix wrote:
Then again, people don't want their internet experience to be more a p.i.t.a. Hence the phrase if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!

I agree with you about things being a pain in the ass. But ill counter that argument with this, why do you conclude that a new updated interface would have to be a p.i.t.a or hard to navigate? Its completely possible that a new interface here could be just as easy - maybe even easier - to navigate and since it utilized new technologies could be even less of a p.i.t.a than MM currently is on a regular basis.

Dec 12 12 07:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 836
Orange, California, US


AM Photography wrote:
Well Im not saying that they should make major changes on a monthly basis, just that maybe one big update to bring the site up to more a more modern look and feel, add some highly requested features, and take advantage of new web technologies that can help the site run smoother would be a good idea.

As I mentioned, Adapt or die.

Also, what are all you people talking about omp memberships? I have a free account there and have never paid a thing. Has something changed since I signed up? As far as I know its just as easy to get an account here as it is there.

All photographer sites on omp are now pay sites. It is a $15.00 per year minimum site now.  Models can have a 21 image free site.
The "one big update" you refer to has kept the site dysfunctional since 2009.
The current Beta relaunch has been going on for about 3 months now, with continued promises of it being almost done.
I think omp is a better site for professional photographers that are not locked into glamour//model shooting.
The Main page, even as it is, is much more professional looking than the MM mainpage. They have a broad range of categories real professionals of varied genre can post images to. Weddings, children, lifestyle, landscapes, animals, nature, architectural, are just a few of the categories images can be posted to on omp.
Most professionals, I would think, would want a site they can send clients to that has a professional looking portfolio main, with the proper main page image they are selling, MM does not allow images of landscapes, architectural, animals, or nature that I know of.
Someone mentioned all the dead sites on omp, yet we are constantly reading in here about all the dead sites on MM.
I believe if you want to really market your work on the internet you should be on as many sites as you have the time and money to maintain.

Dec 12 12 10:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 9,074
Seattle, Washington, US


AM Photography wrote:
Up until recently omp (onemodelplace) looked terrible, which likely led to the site being so dead. Anyways, I was recently there for some reason of which I cannot recall, but I noticed that they have done a major overhaul and upgraded the site big time.

It inspired me enough that I actually updated my profile and portfolio on the site, though sadly It seems that it has not brought back the masses quite yet. For Example, I did a search and within 50 miles of me only a few models had logged in within the last 2 months, Most had been inactive for 6 months to a year at least.

Anyways, my point behind the post is not to promote omp, but to bring up another point. Should MM look at upgrading to a more modern look as well? Personally I think that it would be a great idea, but im curious what everyone else thinks.

What modern look? Like Myspace? The look that hurts your eyes?

Bells and whistles, bad idea!!!

Dec 12 12 10:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 836
Orange, California, US


Chuckarelei wrote:

What modern look? Like Myspace? The look that hurts your eyes?

Bells and whistles, bad idea!!!

Not necessarilly  bells and whistles, but a better looking portfolio main page would be an asset.

Dec 12 12 10:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LMJ Photo
Posts: 208
Chicago, Illinois, US


Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Personally, I think OMP's new look 'Sucks'.   And, IMHO, it's far less user friendly and functional than the old one.  I note that the old site is still operational and generally I prefer it to their 'new look'.  So, if fancy looks is what they are 'pi**ing away' my dues on, I'm not thrilled.  One example - you can't do a 'global search' for an omp model.  You can only search in one state or province at a time.  A PITA if you are trying to locate a model but aren't sure what state she's in.

I'm not sure why there was the 'exodus' from omp in the first place.  But, I think you are premature in jumping to the conclusion that it was because of their "look".

There have been recent threads in the forums here about "Facebook" taking away business from MM. 

Frankly, I'm far less impressed by fancy looks than by function.

"Perfect is the enemy of good"

1000

Dec 12 12 11:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Twin Coast Imaging
Posts: 81
Saint John, Missouri, US


ForeverFotos wrote:
omp who?
http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-045.gif

Dec 13 12 06:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 2,543
Ashford, England, United Kingdom


MM is creaking and groaning along like an overloaded coaster in a heavy swell.  But it is MM, and I suspect that the sort of radical overhaul the site needs would ruin the character of the place.

I wasn't overly impressed with the omp new look, but then I never am when a site gets revamped.  As stated by others, omp has probably had its day, and I rarely go there now, so any new look could be likened to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Hopefully, MM will refrain from updating the site until it, too, has become irrelevant, and we're all doing this on Facebook instead.
Dec 13 12 06:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 35,182
Columbus, Ohio, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
isn't the real difference between omp and MM is that on MM all the pornographers on the site have to quietly network whereas on omp they can do all their casting calls out in the open?

That sums up a few things. wink

Dec 13 12 07:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J Welborn
Posts: 2,552
Clarksville, Tennessee, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
isn't the real difference between omp and MM is that on MM all the pornographers on the site have to quietly network whereas on omp they can do all their casting calls out in the open?

Yep I think omp caters to the poronographers

Dec 13 12 07:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 836
Orange, California, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
isn't the real difference between omp and MM is that on MM all the pornographers on the site have to quietly network whereas on omp they can do all their casting calls out in the open?

This is true, but when dealing with a pornographer isn't it really better for the model to be doing it out in the open with one who openly advertises porn, and more than likely is very professional, rather than some possible sleaze/GWC doing it on the sly?
I am sure there are many very professional pornographers here on MM as members and probably many are even VIP members. Shouldn't those professional and trusted, paying members be allowed to make it known here that that is what they do?
Even though omp allows adult video (porn) makers on the site, neither they nor the model is allowed to display the graphic results.
OMP is much stricter regarding the content of images and language posted than MM. The omp moderators and administrators follow the printed posting rules to the letter. It seems that the MM moderators/admins change the rules continuously and at random regarding allowable content.

Dec 13 12 08:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J Welborn
Posts: 2,552
Clarksville, Tennessee, US


GeorgeMann wrote:
This is true, but when dealing with a pornographer isn't it really better for the model to be doing it out in the open with one who openly advertises porn, and more than likely is very professional, rather than some possible sleaze/GWC doing it on the sly?
I am sure there are many very professional pornographers here on MM as members and probably many are even VIP members. Shouldn't those professional and trusted, paying members be allowed to make it known here that that is what they do?
Even though omp allows adult video (porn) makers on the site, neither they nor the model is allowed to display the graphic results.
OMP is much stricter regarding the content of images and language posted than MM. The omp moderators and administrators follow the printed posting rules to the letter. It seems that the MM moderators/admins change the rules continuously and at random regarding allowable content.

Very good points

Dec 13 12 08:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 22,059
Salem, Oregon, US


i'd like to see mayhem add some features (like auto-email when a new model signs up in your area) but as far as the site look/navigation i'm fine with it (on a good day when everything is running smoothly). the old omp was inscrutable.

i've had several successful shoots through omp but i'm not a member at the moment.
Dec 13 12 09:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 17,470
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Don't forget that omp also has a site (w/a different name) that looks like a direct copy of MM....
                                ... and nobody's using that one either!


By kicking off all of the photographers that helped turn it into a major website, omp shot themselves in the foot and no amount of surgery will make it all OK again.
Dec 13 12 10:14 am  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers