I'm not fond of change anytime, but I'm slowing finding my way around this!

Why do people join a site if they don't like how it looks? To join something and then demand changes is pretty self-centered, I think. I mean, whoever owns this site made it the way they wanted and they liked the look they came up with. Others must have liked the way it looked as well, or they wouldn't have joined. If you didn't like the way it looked, why did you join in the first place?

When I joined Ipernity, I liked it's simple beauty and the way it was laid out. I was content with it's look because I figured everything out pretty quickly and I was just getting smooth in my usage of Ipernity. Now, it's changed already. People, try to be happy with what you've got! And be thankful there is a place like Ipernity. The grass isn't any greener on the other side of the fence - it's still grass. So, learn to like your own grass and be comfortable with it. It won't hurt you.

Rhisiart, my question is, and not necessarily to the Ipernity team, when is good good enough? And this "gradual evolution" you speak of. Who is evolving, the internet or the people who use the internet? Because one seems to be changing the other and it's a forced change. When does "useful" ever become non-vibrant and non-viable? And should something that is completely useful ever have to be held to the standard of being "vibrant" and "viable?"

In general, is it not simply that other sites are changing and this causes their competition to feel they have to change as well, just to keep up? Everybody is just trying to catch the consumer's eye with the next big flashy thing, but I don't feel "flashy" is necessarily good or useful most of the time. Add on to the top of that, everything is constantly changing: packaging for foods, prices, the way your bills look, the method you do your banking, laws and regulations, fashions, fads - it's bewildering and it seems to keep people off balance because they're always trying to "catch up."