Big changes at Flickr

[Julia]

Hmm, as unpleasant as this is (I'd been using a private, non-public Flickr account to backup my photos in addition to other backup methods), I'm sort of in favor of this move, too.

I am so annoyed when people just do a public image dump of every vacation photo or a series of images that all show the same thing into Flickr, which makes it so hard to find good content. Maybe this will help to cut down on the cr*p some people post for no good reason and allow us to enjoy the content more.

 

[Saledolce]

Not sure this will be enough to cut the crap on flickr, and revive the community. When they doubled the pro fee, I didn't renew and I feel like my crap is less crappy than the average stuff over there. I am now smumug client, and find a bit crazy they would charge me full even if I was willing to support this try to bring back the photo community.

Anyway, I kind of miss flickr, so I'd be happy if they find a way to make it work (great?) again. I would start with something radical on groups.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I am so annoyed when people just do a public image dump of every vacation photo or a series of images that all show the same thing into Flickr, which makes it so hard to find good content.

I don't follow the logic... You chose who you follow (as with Instagram, Facebook etc.) - so why don't you just follow people with quality content and not follow people with crap content?

 

[speedy]

100% price increase, for some weasel words about "unmatched community" and nothing else? Get f#€<{> you money grabbing pricks. Been a pro account holder for many years, not any longer. Can't even embed photos from Android devices.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Not impressed and dissapointed. I have been using flickr for 6 years. I edit my outings and holidays and put the best into folders on the site. It is not a dump for my work. Of course my photos are backed up onto hard drives, but no one is going to see them there. I belong to groups where we post our 10 best photos from the outing. Nothing is for free, I realize that, but...

 

[Walter]

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

The same thing happened to me with my website provider bplaced: they limited the free account from 2 GB to 1 GB without telling beforehand and simply deleted half of my files randomly. They could have asked before to give us a chance of deciding what to do. It took me two days to get my content on another website (lima-city) which at a cheaper rate offers 8 GB free space. Of course I'd pay the 3.50 € per month for 50 GB if I needed more space.

I just find it unacceptable when organizations offer free space and people make use of it (and do not upgrade to a bigger paid version) to come some time later and say well, folks, that was it.

 

[speedy]

It's the 100% increase that riles me up. 25%, 30%, -you could accept that as increased business cost, but as storage is getting cheaper, and the targeting of longer term subscribers, it just smacks of blackmail to me.

 

[piggsy]

I just find it unacceptable when organizations offer free space and people make use of it (and do not upgrade to a bigger paid version) to come some time later and say well, folks, that was it.

It's the classic "out of ideas" scheme really, rather than improve value or develop new features, just cripple and ransom the one thing the service was useful for. Between this and Photobucket we're seeing some real internet poison happening, these people just aren't fit custodians of what people gave them. I can't help but wish there was some GPL style poison pill where they would have to go and redevelop their site as though it had never depended on any other image host or pastebin with more than 1000 entries in it to discourage this kind of shit.

 

[Julia]

I don't follow the logic... You chose who you follow (as with Instagram, Facebook etc.) - so why don't you just follow people with quality content and not follow people with crap content?

Sorry for any confusion. It's not about following, but rather when you do a search on Flickr. For example, if you are looking for images from a particular region or location to get inspiration or make travel plans. If you run into someone who took thirty family pictures in that location with no regards to composition etc. and dumped them all on Flickr, it gets really tedious to go through everything to find some quality work that actually helps.

To me, Flickr was never an image sharing service that was meant to publicly share family photos or publicly share your entire image library. In my understanding, it was a service to showcase you best images and contribute to the community of photographers who want to learn from each other and get inspiration.

 

[PakkyT]

To me, Flickr was never an image sharing service that was meant to publicly share family photos or publicly share your entire image library. In my understanding, it was a service to showcase you best images and contribute to the community of photographers who want to learn from each other and get inspiration.

I disagree. Flickr has always been a photo sharing place for everyone. Including family vacation albums which while you have no interest in are still very important to those people who upload them and to the people they share them with such as friends and family.

"About 80 percent of the photos on Flickr are public and searchable by everyone. In one sense, it's a place where people upload snapshots from the family reunion, wedding or the birth of a baby or something like that, but it's also a place where people go to show what the world looks like to them." Stewart Butterfield, cofounder of Flickr

If you only want to see the best of the best, then you are probably better served by such sites as 500px.

 

[ex machina]

Meh, pulled the trigger and went pro, which I had been meaning to do anyway.

 

[inthecage]

I have a flickr account with 337 pictures on it. I pay for Pro. It's like 3 bucks a month or something. I do it because it's right, they offer a service and as far as I'm concerned its done safe and well. They can improve in a lot of ways and I hope they do, but c'mon.

 

[Wisertime]

I disagree. Flickr has always been a photo sharing place for everyone. Including family vacation albums which while you have no interest in are still very important to those people who upload them and to the people they share them with such as friends and family.

"About 80 percent of the photos on Flickr are public and searchable by everyone. In one sense, it's a place where people upload snapshots from the family reunion, wedding or the birth of a baby or something like that, but it's also a place where people go to show what the world looks like to them." Stewart Butterfield, cofounder of Flickr

If you only want to see the best of the best, then you are probably better served by such sites as 500px.

I think you're both right. I think what Julia means (and I've seen) is when someone dumps 50 or more photos that are basically the same into say a lens specific group like the [Olympus 75mm F1.8] group and there are 50 snapshots of the same person at a picnic from slightly different angles, unculled, unedited.

Dump all the photos you want into your personal stream, but if you're adding to a specific public group, just put the best or a variety of shots...not 50 shots of basically the same thing/person.

For this reason many groups limit the number you can contribute per day to avoid this sort of issue.

 

[PakkyT]

I think what Julia means (and I've seen) is when someone dumps 50 or more photos that are basically the same into say a lens specific group like the [Olympus 75mm F1.8] group and there are 50 snapshots of the same person at a picnic from slightly different angles, unculled, unedited.

Yes I agree when you are talking about group abuse, but if you look at Julia's post again she was talking about doing general searches outside of groups and resented having to wade through someone's family snapshots from their latest trip...

It's not about following, but rather when you do a search on Flickr. For example, if you are looking for images from a particular region or location to get inspiration or make travel plans.

While I appreciate that her photography is very good and is better than the average Flickr user, when she basically complains that those people's stuff is, in her words, "cr*p", seems to me she should look for another site where those of us not up to her standards don't have to subject her to our inferior work.

 

[Julia]

I think you're both right. I think what Julia means (and I've seen) is when someone dumps 50 or more photos that are basically the same into say a lens specific group like the [Olympus 75mm F1.8] group and there are 50 snapshots of the same person at a picnic from slightly different angles, unculled, unedited.

Yes, that's especially annoying

Yes I agree when you are talking about group abuse, but if you look at Julia's post again she was talking about doing general searches outside of groups and resented having to wade through someone's family snapshots from their latest trip...

Yes, that's also true. I don't understand why someone would post personal pictures of their family/friends/work mates on such a public forum, for the entire world to see. Maybe it's just me being overly German and being concerned about privacy. But I'd never share family photos that show my family or friends or colleagues publicly unless it's for a very specific reason. That's what privacy settings are for, or other platforms that allow for direct sharing without exposing that information to the entire world wide web. I don't even approve if my family shares family pictures with people I don't know because it's my privacy that's being violated.

Again, it seems some people feel comfortable exposing their private lives this way, and that's their prerogative … I just have a different take on that.

But let's get back to the actual topic, which is the new limitations on the free Flickr accounts, shall we?

 

[davidzvi]

One question for LONG time Flickr Pros, when was the last price increase?

 

[50orsohours]

One question for LONG time Flickr Pros, when was the last price increase?

$19.95 if I remember correctly, before it was increased to $24.95

 

[davidzvi]

$19.95 if I remember correctly, before it was increased to $24.95

But when? Smugmug had an increase 2 (?) years ago and it was the first one I remember since I started using them 10+ years ago. So yes it's double, but when was the last increase.

Note: $50 is Smugmug's current basic level, so that rate makes it consistent across their product lines.

 

[Saledolce]

I went pro (again) today, with a 30% discount. Let's give these guys one year to see if the "community" can be fixed or not.

 

[PakkyT]

Maybe it's just me being overly German and being concerned about privacy.

It is funny you mention that because just today a coworker and myself were looking at Google Maps (GM) because another co-worker has relocated to Germany to work at our site there (a company we acquired). He said be sure to come check it out sometime and have a beer and see the neighborhood on GM. While I have known that if you request it, you can have your house, business, or other images shown on GM, I have only noticed it maybe once or twice when looking at maps of areas of the USA. But today looking at just that one neighborhood in Germany, there were a LOT of blurred out buildings which I had never seen before in that number. So ya, something about you German's I guess.

But let's get back to the actual topic, which is the new limitations on the free Flickr accounts, shall we?

Ah but that is exactly what we were talking about, well about ALL the changes coming to Flickr, not just free accounts. Flickr with a long history of supporting any person's photos regardless of perceived value by others. Since you stated...

To me, Flickr was never an image sharing service that was meant to publicly share family photos or publicly share your entire image library.

it is as if you think the new limits will somehow also limit all the snaps you don't care to see. But I don't think that is the case. I see plenty of outstanding and professional photographers on Flickr who have never bothered to pay and I see plenty of "Pro" Flickr account holders among those who post a lot of photos that to you do not serve any purpose. Since Flickr has always been about every person posting whatever the heck they want, I think with the changes you might see a reduction over all of people using Flickr, but I don't think the cross section of the types of photos you see will change much. You are still going to get the vacation shots, the guy who only photographs trains, the woman who posts every puzzle she puts together, the guy with the foot fetish secretly taking photos of woman's feet in public, everyone's pets, etc.

I don't see these changes making the photography of Flickr any more professional or less unprofessional than it is currently. I am afraid it will simply cause Flickr to shrink further until it is either closed or sold off once again.