25 new Brooklyn camera dealer pictures

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

I just put on the web an additional 25 pictures of Brooklyn store fronts.
These were taken over several bicycle trips over the past few weeks. The
new ones are mixed in, but can be found by looking for numbers greater than
138. See: http/donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/

Most of the new pictures also have the larger original size picture
available if you click on the VGA sized one. To know if this is the case
hover your cursor over the picture and it will note so.

The pictures are in alphabetical order by assumed business name. I have
moved the ones now out-of-business to a section at the end. Former
locations are still mixed in with current locations. I could put them into
their own section. What do you think?

The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital cameras.
There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original purpose.
Should I include them?

There is an awful lot of time spent in researching and trying to figure out
the relationships and where they really are. Taking the pictures is the
easy and fun part. I may have some relationships wrong. Then for some I
simply don't know the true location where business is conducted from. Then
there is the contradictory information. For example, on this page:
http/www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t109127.html it has all the Inoax and
butterflyphoto businesses as one. With some of the J&K and Big on Digital
web sites included for good measure. It is possible, but I doubt it.

Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links to their
sites?

Anyway, I have more pictures to take. And a few to upgrade. My goal is to
get all caught up before winter sets in.

This is the only announcement I am posting on these new pictures. Feel free
to forward this on to appropriate forums.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

> The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital cameras.
> There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
> could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original purpose.
> Should I include them?

If they're affiliated in any way with any of the camera shops,
definitely. And if not, why not?


> Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links
> to their sites?

It wouldn't make any difference to me. Hot or not, it's almost
trivially easy to use the links. If they're hot, I suppose you
might be able to collect some data showing something about either
the popularity of the storefronts or the organization of your
website.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:41:33 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
>
>> The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital cameras.
>> There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
>> could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original purpose.
>> Should I include them?
>
> If they're affiliated in any way with any of the camera shops,
>definitely. And if not, why not?

No affiliation. Just when searching on Brooklyn on places like pricescan
they come up. The downside is more work for me to maintain the entire
thing.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Don Wiss" wrote
> No affiliation. Just when searching on Brooklyn on places like pricescan
> they come up. The downside is more work for me to maintain the entire
> thing.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
>

I don't have a preference either way, but did want to say I think the work
you already is really valuable. I hope you get emails from people who
appreciate the work you put into the site, and trying to prevent the scam
artists from winning the war. I also hope that on ocassion you get an email
telling you how you saved someone who was just about to order from one the
less than desirable sites. It is always good to know the work we do has a
positive impact on others and you deserve lots of feedback.

Take care,
Linda

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:18:12 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>
>"Don Wiss" wrote
>> No affiliation. Just when searching on Brooklyn on places like pricescan
>> they come up. The downside is more work for me to maintain the entire
>> thing.
>>
>> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
>>
>
>I don't have a preference either way, but did want to say I think the work
>you already is really valuable. I hope you get emails from people who
>appreciate the work you put into the site, and trying to prevent the scam
>artists from winning the war. I also hope that on ocassion you get an email
>telling you how you saved someone who was just about to order from one the
>less than desirable sites. It is always good to know the work we do has a
>positive impact on others and you deserve lots of feedback.
>
>Take care,
>Linda
>
I will second that.
Thanks, Don! I offer your pics as a part of a Digital Photo Sig info
package.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Don Wiss wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:41:33 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital cameras.
>>>There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
>>>could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original purpose.
>>>Should I include them?
>>
>> If they're affiliated in any way with any of the camera shops,
>>definitely. And if not, why not?
>
>
> No affiliation. Just when searching on Brooklyn on places like pricescan
> they come up. The downside is more work for me to maintain the entire
> thing.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


Just remember... any webmonkey can analyse inbound referrer data to
learn where their hits are coming from. For them to know your hot links
are the source may or may not matter to you.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Don Wiss wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:41:33 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital cameras.
>>>There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
>>>could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original purpose.
>>>Should I include them?
>>
>> If they're affiliated in any way with any of the camera shops,
>>definitely. And if not, why not?
>
>
> No affiliation. Just when searching on Brooklyn on places like pricescan
> they come up. The downside is more work for me to maintain the entire
> thing.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


Oh, I'm such a flub... keep on keeping on.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Linda Nieuwenstein <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

> but did want to say I think the work
>you already is really valuable. I hope you get emails from people who
>appreciate the work you put into the site, and trying to prevent the scam
>artists from winning the war. I also hope that on ocassion you get an email
>telling you how you saved someone who was just about to order from one the
>less than desirable sites. It is always good to know the work we do has a
>positive impact on others and you deserve lots of feedback.

I get all types of e-mails. People from before the sale, and they then find
a mention to reselleratings.com which settles it for them. But more after
e-mails, and I hear about all sorts of sorry tales. The latest is a fellow
in Sweden that returned something. He has the documentation showing the
owner of the mailbox store that he sent it to signed for it. But he gets
the runaround. The number he is supposed to call is not answering. He
finally got an e-mail with "We are sorry that the number is not working,
our office is currently moving due to the Katarina [sic] situation, we can
call you." Now we didn't even get any rain here from Katrina.

But maybe they are moving for some other reason. Let me add their real
address to my list of ones to check.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Don Wiss wrote:
> I just put on the web an additional 25 pictures of Brooklyn store fronts.
> These were taken over several bicycle trips over the past few weeks. The
> new ones are mixed in, but can be found by looking for numbers greater than
> 138. See: http/donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
>
> Most of the new pictures also have the larger original size picture
> available if you click on the VGA sized one. To know if this is the case
> hover your cursor over the picture and it will note so.
>
> The pictures are in alphabetical order by assumed business name. I have
> moved the ones now out-of-business to a section at the end. Former
> locations are still mixed in with current locations. I could put them into
> their own section. What do you think?
>
> The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital cameras.
> There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
> could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original purpose.
> Should I include them?
>
> There is an awful lot of time spent in researching and trying to figure out
> the relationships and where they really are. Taking the pictures is the
> easy and fun part. I may have some relationships wrong. Then for some I
> simply don't know the true location where business is conducted from. Then
> there is the contradictory information. For example, on this page:
> http/www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t109127.html it has all the Inoax and
> butterflyphoto businesses as one. With some of the J&K and Big on Digital
> web sites included for good measure. It is possible, but I doubt it.
>
> Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links to their
> sites?
>
> Anyway, I have more pictures to take. And a few to upgrade. My goal is to
> get all caught up before winter sets in.
>
> This is the only announcement I am posting on these new pictures. Feel free
> to forward this on to appropriate forums.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Maybe I'm naive, but does a business neccessarily have to have a nice
store front to be reputable? In this day and age, don't some honest
businesses eschew the fancy facilities to keep costs down and still
deliver to their customers? Or is there a direct correlation between
the cost of the store front and the quality of the business?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On 4 Sep 2005 23:31:07 -0700, salgud <davegb@safebrowse.com> wrote:

>Maybe I'm naive, but does a business neccessarily have to have a nice
>store front to be reputable? In this day and age, don't some honest
>businesses eschew the fancy facilities to keep costs down and still
>deliver to their customers? Or is there a direct correlation between
>the cost of the store front and the quality of the business?

I know of at least one blog that mentions my site and argues that the low
cost look means they can pass the savings on to their customers. This is
fine by me, as I don't want to pass judgement at my site on the places I
picture. I impartially picture everybody I can find.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:01:25 -0400, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>
wrote:

>No affiliation. Just when searching on Brooklyn on places like pricescan
>they come up. The downside is more work for me to maintain the entire
>thing.

Don, I've made several referrals to your site, so I definitely
appreciate the hard work you've done.

I'd say to keep it focused on cameras only. The extra work might get
you to a point where you just don't want to maintain the site anymore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On 4 Sep 2005 23:31:07 -0700, "salgud" <davegb@safebrowse.com> wrote:

>Maybe I'm naive, but does a business neccessarily have to have a nice
>store front to be reputable? In this day and age, don't some honest
>businesses eschew the fancy facilities to keep costs down and still
>deliver to their customers? Or is there a direct correlation between
>the cost of the store front and the quality of the business?

No, the lack of a stocked store, or nice showroom, doesn't mean a
company is bad. Lot's of places are drop-ship orghanizations, and
completely honest.
Unfortunately, when an item is 'hot', as computers and digital cameras
(and roofing work after a storm ), for example, there will always
people who will take the easy way out for making money.
Taking orders and credit card numbers is such a way to make money
easily. Luring customers into the operation with low prices and
promises of great service will always bring in orders from those less
willing or able to check on the sellers. Digital camera shops seem to
be one such fertile ground for such scams.
As always, places like resellerratings.com should be consulted when
you're thinking of dealing with a shop you're not familiar with.
After reading here for a while, you'll see that, in NY, places like
B&H and Adorama and a few others are very honest and reliable, with
prices that are a little higher than average. If yiou see porices that
are *very much* lower than theirs, alarms should go off. Competition
is tight, lower prices must be padded somehow to pay the employees and
overhead, as well as the rent. Even drop-shipping can't get the price
of, for example, a Digital Rebel XT/350D kit down to $750US. Yet.
Caveat emptor.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005, at 16:46:42 [GMT -0400] (06:46:42 Monday, 5 September
2005 where I live) "Don Wiss" wrote:

> I just put on the web an additional 25 pictures of Brooklyn store fronts.
> These were taken over several bicycle trips over the past few weeks. The
> new ones are mixed in, but can be found by looking for numbers greater than
> 138. See: http/donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/


Thanks for putting these up. Pity they are allowed to remain in business!

--
Remember: You're unique, just like everybody else

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

And the constant stream of new names means they don't wish to rest on
their laurels. The constant stream of complaints to the bbb probably refers
to thier continuing committment to experimenting with new forms of
integrity.

--
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"salgud" <davegb@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
news:1125901867.901044.3560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Don Wiss wrote:
> > I just put on the web an additional 25 pictures of Brooklyn store
fronts.
> > These were taken over several bicycle trips over the past few weeks. The
> > new ones are mixed in, but can be found by looking for numbers greater
than
> > 138. See: http/donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
> >
> > Most of the new pictures also have the larger original size picture
> > available if you click on the VGA sized one. To know if this is the case
> > hover your cursor over the picture and it will note so.
> >
> > The pictures are in alphabetical order by assumed business name. I have
> > moved the ones now out-of-business to a section at the end. Former
> > locations are still mixed in with current locations. I could put them
into
> > their own section. What do you think?
> >
> > The new pictures include a few businesses that do not sell digital
cameras.
> > There are more such dealers, like ones selling appliances only, that I
> > could add. This, of course, takes me away from the site's original
purpose.
> > Should I include them?
> >
> > There is an awful lot of time spent in researching and trying to figure
out
> > the relationships and where they really are. Taking the pictures is the
> > easy and fun part. I may have some relationships wrong. Then for some I
> > simply don't know the true location where business is conducted from.
Then
> > there is the contradictory information. For example, on this page:
> > http/www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t109127.html it has all the Inoax and
> > butterflyphoto businesses as one. With some of the J&K and Big on
Digital
> > web sites included for good measure. It is possible, but I doubt it.
> >
> > Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links to
their
> > sites?
> >
> > Anyway, I have more pictures to take. And a few to upgrade. My goal is
to
> > get all caught up before winter sets in.
> >
> > This is the only announcement I am posting on these new pictures. Feel
free
> > to forward this on to appropriate forums.
> >
> > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
>
> Maybe I'm naive, but does a business neccessarily have to have a nice
> store front to be reputable? In this day and age, don't some honest
> businesses eschew the fancy facilities to keep costs down and still
> deliver to their customers? Or is there a direct correlation between
> the cost of the store front and the quality of the business?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:54:38 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> And the constant stream of new names means they don't wish to rest on
>their laurels. The constant stream of complaints to the bbb probably refers
>to thier continuing committment to experimenting with new forms of
>integrity.

Ah! Of course! That's it, I'm, sure! :-/

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2005 23:31:07 -0700, "salgud" <davegb@safebrowse.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe I'm naive, but does a business neccessarily have to have a nice
> >store front to be reputable? In this day and age, don't some honest
> >businesses eschew the fancy facilities to keep costs down and still
> >deliver to their customers? Or is there a direct correlation between
> >the cost of the store front and the quality of the business?
>
> No, the lack of a stocked store, or nice showroom, doesn't mean a
> company is bad. Lot's of places are drop-ship orghanizations, and
> completely honest.
> Unfortunately, when an item is 'hot', as computers and digital cameras
> (and roofing work after a storm ), for example, there will always
> people who will take the easy way out for making money.
> Taking orders and credit card numbers is such a way to make money
> easily. Luring customers into the operation with low prices and
> promises of great service will always bring in orders from those less
> willing or able to check on the sellers. Digital camera shops seem to
> be one such fertile ground for such scams.
> As always, places like resellerratings.com should be consulted when
> you're thinking of dealing with a shop you're not familiar with.
> After reading here for a while, you'll see that, in NY, places like
> B&H and Adorama and a few others are very honest and reliable, with
> prices that are a little higher than average. If yiou see porices that
> are *very much* lower than theirs, alarms should go off. Competition
> is tight, lower prices must be padded somehow to pay the employees and
> overhead, as well as the rent. Even drop-shipping can't get the price
> of, for example, a Digital Rebel XT/350D kit down to $750US. Yet.
> Caveat emptor.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Replace "g" with "a"
> funktionality.blogspot.com

I agree with everything you've said. I've been shopping for my first
digital camera and am thinking about buying it online. I've been
checking out the online prices and have found the incredibly low priced
vendors and finding out what you usually do in those circumstances. The
prices are indeed in-credible. IOW, not credible. The places have
terrible ratings and reviews. I've learned over the years that buying
online means doing as much research into the sellers as the product
itself.
Actually, I guess it's not that different. I haven't shopped in Sears
in almost 30 years, when I came the the conclusion that their basic
philosophy of business is to treat all cumtomers like marks, stupid
people to be fleeced at every opportunity. I won't shop somewhere where
I believe they're out to take me for every cent they can get from the
second I walk in the door! They've always been around, but the internet
gives them even better ways to hide and take advantage of the unwary.
I'm just not convinced that a lousy store front is indicative of
anything. I certainly wouldn't let it discourage me from buying from
someone who has a 99+% rating. Not would a fancy store front, i.e.
Sears, convince me they're legit. Appearances can be misleading both
ways. Caveat emptor, as always.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

John Phillips wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005, at 16:46:42 [GMT -0400] (06:46:42 Monday, 5 September
> 2005 where I live) "Don Wiss" wrote:
>
> > I just put on the web an additional 25 pictures of Brooklyn store fronts.
> > These were taken over several bicycle trips over the past few weeks. The
> > new ones are mixed in, but can be found by looking for numbers greater than
> > 138. See: http/donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
>
>
> Thanks for putting these up. Pity they are allowed to remain in business!
>
> --
> Remember: You're unique, just like everybody else

Obviously, there are 2 schools of thought in this thread. Above, I
suggested that the bricks part of an internect business is probably not
indicative of whether or not they're honest or shady, and got some
agreement. In this part of the thread, it's a given that anyone with a
shabby store front is a crook. Very interesting!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400 in rec.photo.digital, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote,
>Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links to their
>sites?

Linking to them would raise their Google ratings.
You decide if that is good or bad.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:53:19 GMT, David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400 in rec.photo.digital, Don Wiss wrote,
>>Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links to their
>>sites?
>
>Linking to them would raise their Google ratings.
>You decide if that is good or bad.

I doubt that would matter. They get their business from having low prices
on the price search sites. I decided not to, as I don't want them to
analyze their statistics and find traffic coming from my site.

I've got my next tour all mapped out. I need to get caught up before I can
resume looking for more. I need all of them on one page, so I can easily
reference it to find out if I already have them.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <qvhth1dlsvkodj7ep8pr51i2tr7cg2693t@4ax.com>,
Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:53:19 GMT, David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:46:42 -0400 in rec.photo.digital, Don Wiss wrote,
>>>Another question. Should I make the domain names I list hot links to their
>>>sites?
>>
>>Linking to them would raise their Google ratings.
>>You decide if that is good or bad.
>
>I doubt that would matter. They get their business from having low prices
>on the price search sites. I decided not to, as I don't want them to
>analyze their statistics and find traffic coming from my site.
>
>I've got my next tour all mapped out. I need to get caught up before I can
>resume looking for more. I need all of them on one page, so I can easily
>reference it to find out if I already have them.
>
>Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


You can put the URL on you web page as plain text and people
can cot and paste instead of clicking. Explain why and they'll
understand.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.