Is this really what PUP is for?

As a PUP member I was a little surprised when I clicked on the members-only article aboput the 'best five Pentax lenses' to discover it is nothing more than an advertising piece where PU make money with affiliate advertising.

Is this really what the subscription is for? I don't object to PU making money, it is a business after all, but I do think that if they are going to do something this blatent it whould at least be correctly marked as an 'Advertising Feature'.

Or is it just me?

Wheres the DA*50-155 in that line up?

Agreed, the article was pointless, to be fair there really hasnt been any benefit that I can think of. The articles have been on the whole rather thin.

I wonder if it was tagged wrong if it was really just advertising?

JR's review of the 31 Limited, and the Q firmware articles aren't PUP only, whereas the Star Trail article is.

The impression I get is that anything in the 'Latest News and Articles' section that shows Pentax in a good light, and might encourage people to buy stuff, is free to all ... but that anything they perceive as 'added value' is PUP only.

It's fair enough, since they're a business, after all. But IMO it's a bit misguided, since there's so much free tutorial material out there on tinternet.

I don't know if the articles have improved - when I subscribed to the mag, they were always a bit lightweight for me, so I let my sub lapse. They'd have to be damn good to make it worth paying for, and I've heard nothing to suggest they are.

I was of a similar mind.

Whilst the hook is "We show the Top 5 Best Pentax Lenses for Pentax Digital SLRs". it's a totally erroneous and misleading statement. Those 'Best 5' are taken only from the lenses reviewed by PU.

Many of the DA* lenses were never reviewed by PU, or if they were, they weren't included in the list from which these 'Best 5' were selected.

A pretty meaningless attempt to pad out the advertising space on the right of my screen.

Actually, I wouldn't mind paying to be able to get rid of it.

I don't frequent the other forum much, although I've been looking a bit more recently. But getting more screen width to look at pictures etc is really nice.

Their business model is different, of course, but it has a lot in its favour. A conscience-based donations system with extra features if you donate (I haven't yet!), and what appears to be a lot less censorship.

Agreed. I find myself spending more and more time on 'the other' forum.

Given that PU currently seems to resemble little more than the marketplace on the other forum, perhaps PU should start charging a fee for placing sales in place of generating income via the poorly regarded PUP facility?

That is exactly how the other forum raises revenue. That is why it is relatively free of annoying ads, and all areas are available without restriction, whether you have contributed or not. They do not have a business model and just aim to cover costs. They make the revenues raised public, and plough any surplus into increasing server space - increasing the size and number of uploads for everyone.

I don't see any point in complaining - I shan't be renewing my subscription though.

I had to laugh at the Macro article because if you click on a link in it, it leads you here - link good advert for those camera makes we must not name.

Before this thread gets removed I would be grateful if someone could pm me a link to this 'other forum'.

Kind regards
Charlotte

You have a pm

Hmm that smc FA 200mm lens in the list looks very much like my smc DA 200.

The DA and FA 200mm f2.8 lenses are virtually identical apart from the obvious exterior differences.

TBH if it's possible to do that I'm not sure why they don't do the same thing with the * 85mm 1.4, * 80-200 2.8, *300mm f2.8, *400mm f5.6, *250-600mm and especially the *200mm f4 macro.

Well, I do know why they won't do it ... would cost a ruddy fortune, but what a lens lineup.

could i have one of those please

Me too