For example, can we ask: Why did Kai W leave DigitalRev TV?

migrated from photo.stackexchange.com Jul 11 at 14:36

This question came from our site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers.

  • He did a video about that on his own channel. (And he is a british guy and drtv is a hongkong company, so he wants back home) – Horitsu Jul 11 at 5:07

My gut is instinct is that this type of question is a poor fit for any Stack Exchange site. "Why did [social media personality X] [do action Y]?" just doesn't seem to work well into Stack Exchange Q&A. To me, they feel gossipy (even if there is an objective answer).

But going beyond my gut, in my opinion this particular type of question has nothing to do with photography (in the sense of being on-topic for Photo.SE). That Kai changed employers is of no interest to the art, science, tools, or business of helping people make or understand photography. People might be personally interested in Kai's goings-on, but that interest does not intersect the mission of Photo.SE, in my opinion.

Answers to those questions are either:

  1. Opinion-based. Possibly opinions can be backed up with citable references, but still largely opinion-based. Definitely not a good fit for SE sites.

  2. Objectively answered. But in most of these cases, the question should probably be downvoted for being trivially searchable (the hover-over text for a question's DV button is: "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful"). In this case, Googling for literally the question in this meta-question, "Why did Kai W leave DigitalRev TV", brings up several answers. The first of which is a PetaPixel article that embeds Kai's video explaining why he left.

  • "That Kai changed employers is of no interest to the art, science, tools, or business of helping people make or understand photography." Weeeellllll, it kind of does, if only because Kai was making videos that were almost exclusively about the art, science, tools, or business of photography. Now it seems much fewer videos are being made (by either Kai or DigitalRev), and it's almost certain fewer people are seeing them. – Michael C Jul 12 at 17:07
  • @MichaelClark I get where you're going with that. But I guess my point was that, welp, people change jobs. Publishers close shop. Things change. To me, it would be like asking why Tony Northrup spends more time producing podcasts and general photography tech videos now than he used to. Just a shift of interest, priorities, etc. While the fact that Kai is putting out fewer videos on his own than he did with DigitalRev is observable and perhaps even topical, the reason for that change is because he and DRTV parted ways. But the reason he and DRTV parted ways... no longer seems topical to me. – scottbb Jul 12 at 17:12
  • And I agree with most of that, including your last sentence. I don't agree, though, when you say that a question about Kai and his videos has "nothing to do with photography." – Michael C Jul 12 at 17:18
  • @MichaelClark ah, but I didn't say that. I said, This particular type of question (i.e., That Kai changed emloyers) has nothing to do with photography. Of some interest to some people interested in photography? Sure, perhaps. But not in the on-topic mission of Photo.SE. IMO. =) – scottbb Jul 12 at 17:45
  • "... this particular type of question (i.e., That Kai changed emloyers)(sic) has nothing to do with photography." I disagree. The OP asks, "Can we ask question (sic) about photographer and photography channels?" Kai is certainly a photographer and has produced videos about photography for video channels. It might not be on topic to ask such a question, but the question is certainly related to photography and does have something to do with photography since Kai's employer was a company that sells photographic equipment and produces videos about various aspects of photography. – Michael C Jul 13 at 20:11
  • @MichaelClark At this point we're sort of splitting hairs. I am lazily cutting out subordinate phrases, but it's not about photography (in the Photo.SE topicality sense). It's meta-about photography. Its about why a YouTuber changed jobs. Yes, the YT'er's fame and raison d'être was for photography-related videos. Sure. But it's not about Photo.se photography subjects. That's all. – scottbb Jul 14 at 1:39
  • Then perhaps you could have said, "This particular type of question (i.e., That Kai changed employers) has nothing to do with Photo.se photography subjects." Rather than saying, "This particular type of question (i.e., That Kai changed emloyers) has nothing to do with photography." – Michael C Jul 14 at 17:07
  • Point taken. I've edited my answer to reflect. – scottbb Jul 14 at 17:53

This is an interesting edge case. Certainly if the question about the photographer had to do with their photography itself it would be on topic, however I'm not sure that topics unrelated to a photographer's photography would be on topic and this seems tenuous at best.

Further, this is either something that they have publicly stated or it's something that would be pure opinion. The later would be strongly off-topic and all we can do towards the former is try to find it for you. I don't expect this to be a good candidate for a question.

I would say no, this isn't a valid question on the following (extremely basic) premise:

"Does the answer to this question help anyone with their photography in any way?"

I would confidently suggest that answering that question isn't going to make anyone a better or worse photographer, nor is it "valuable" content that should be retained on a Q&A site. The content is better fitted to social media sites.

I agree that if the question is objectably answerable (that is, we can say with any degree of certainty why Kai left DigitalRev in Hong Kong and moved back to Great Britain where he is from) then it is also one of those that should be answerable with a minimal degree of effort on the part of anyone with access to google.

But we have many upvoted questions with (sometimes) highly upvoted answers that consist of little more that pointing to the applicable section of the User Manual of the camera the OP is asking us how to get to do what they want it to do.

On the other hand, the content of Kai's DigitalRev videos were very much concerned with "... the art, science, tools, or business of helping people make or understand photography." This being the case, it doesn't seem that far off base to ask "Hey, what happened to those great photography videos Kai was making at DigitalRev? Why did they stop?"

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .