Flickr account changes announced

[phrons]

So under $40 for unlimited storage and a possible adobe discount?

Whats the adobe discount, does anyone know?

It is pretty cheap for unlimited storage. The only thing is that it will compress your files (a problem if you shoot digitally).

If I was a professional I wouldnt be using flickr. As my main backup, but only as a way to share photos. Even then it's a small price to pay for your business.

So with my further investigation, $36 a year with an annual payment for unlimited storage is affordable and actually cheap.

What is so unfair? What am I missing?

 

[Contarama]

Wonder how/if the net neutrality thing was a consideration in this deal? I once had a pro membership...it lapsed...nothing changed as far as I could tell...so I never reupped

I was just thinking I have less than a 1000 images on my account. If nothing really changes I most likely will not reupp.

 

[jarski]

This was just in the news https://www.dpreview.com/news/30232...mons-non-profits-from-the-new-1-000-image-cap

Flickr confirms it's sparing Creative Commons, non-profits from the new 1,000 image cap

 

[Highway 61]

This was just in the news https://www.dpreview.com/news/30232...mons-non-profits-from-the-new-1-000-image-cap

So, thinking that individual users still wanting to have their photos hosted at Flickr under full owner's copyright will now have to pay to help the billions of photos uploaded under CC copyright - either by individuals or institutions - to be spared from the 1,000 images limit isn't totally a wrong way to see things.

 

[Out to Lunch]

No idea what this is about. Flickr is offering a reasonable deal...take it or leave it.

 

[jawarden]

No idea what this is about. Flickr is offering a reasonable deal...take it or leave it.

I don't either. Smugmug's approach to keep Flickr alive seems completely reasonable and fair play. They're trying to fix the problems Yahoo created and with any luck they'll succeed. The price sounds reasonable and competitive so hopefully Flickr will stick around.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90262210/flickr-restricts-free-tier-creative-commons-concerns

 

[ASA 32]

I just tried to share a photo, and got a blank page. And I'm a "Pro" member.

 

[Alberti]

Perhaps the dissidents should get together and open a rival called slickr?

It has been known before for customers to club together and open a rival service/shop/whathaveyou...

Regards, David

That's going to cost us even more . .
My internet account offers me a hosting, but I have not been able to just dump pictures in a reasonable res 0,5k - 2K there - but I should have a look.

As far as I see it, Flickr should start with ads for the used equipment, add buy-now options to large retailers and add links to current offers of that lens/camera in the ads section of the big fleabay. And stop accepting photos without metadata (needing them for the ads) but offer the possibility to not broadcast/publicise those. That would be my preferred scenario, were I on the Board.

 

[bulevardi]

Let's talk Flickr again.

I always wondered if there is an algorithm behind Flickr such as Instagram has, which puts some photos on top, or longer visible, ... and how the algorithm works to get a better visibility.

There are people who always like to have more views, or likes or comments. For some, it's like a competition.

Personally, I use Flickr to host photos that I post on Forums (to discuss). It's nice to have comments/likes on Flickr, but not my main priority.
(there's as well some question marks about the value of these likes, as there are lots of people just scrolling and randomly liking photos, without caring or viewing it, just to get likes back in return)

Now... to get to the point.
I noticed, until a while ago (a year?), I had significantly more views/likes than when I post photos nowadays.
Even though I use the same ways of posting them, tagging them, placing them in the same groups, posting them on the same forums ...

Some people tell me (about Instagram) that your visibility grows faster when you have less followers than the people you follow.
Sometimes on Flickr you see people posting lousy photos that get so much likes/comments, pictures that anyone could have taken, there's apparently not much criticism.

I first thought that people with a PRO get priority or something, but it happens with free accounts too.

 

[Scapevision]

I'm happy, now I can delete all the unnecessary crap I had posted on it. And with AdBlock I never ever seen any ads. Ain't paying. Suck it.

 

[Scapevision]

Let's talk Flickr again.

I always wondered if there is an algorithm behind Flickr such as Instagram has, which puts some photos on top, or longer visible, ... and how the algorithm works to get a better visibility.

There are people who always like to have more views, or likes or comments. For some, it's like a competition.

Personally, I use Flickr to host photos that I post on Forums (to discuss). It's nice to have comments/likes on Flickr, but not my main priority.
(there's as well some question marks about the value of these likes, as there are lots of people just scrolling and randomly liking photos, without caring or viewing it, just to get likes back in return)

Now... to get to the point.
I noticed, until a while ago (a year?), I had significantly more views/likes than when I post photos nowadays.
Even though I use the same ways of posting them, tagging them, placing them in the same groups, posting them on the same forums ...

Some people tell me (about Instagram) that your visibility grows faster when you have less followers than the people you follow.
Sometimes on Flickr you see people posting lousy photos that get so much likes/comments, pictures that anyone could have taken, there's apparently not much criticism.

I first thought that people with a PRO get priority or something, but it happens with free accounts too.

I think the only algorithm there is the fact that majority of its users suck as photographers. Can't tell a difference. Same as any online community.

 

[olifaunt]

Let's talk Flickr again.

I always wondered if there is an algorithm behind Flickr such as Instagram has, which puts some photos on top, or longer visible, ... and how the algorithm works to get a better visibility.

The algorithm I observe is very simple. The feed shows me the photos posted by people I follow, newest first, in strict order of time of posting.

So there is no gaming it, which is good.

From my observations, Flickr is generally very anonymous (most of the interaction is just faving) but some of the people who get tons of faves and comments are ones who are good but also leave nice comments on other people's photos. They become a person to you so naturally you want to be encouraging back.

Someone who seldom faves others' pictures is less likely to get faved back. One has to be active at least a little. There are some fantastic photographers I follow who get hardly any likes - each time I come across one of them I can tell it is because they either follow nobody or like nobody.

 

[Erik van Straten]

There are some fantastic photographers I follow who get hardly any likes - each time I come across one of them I can tell it is because they either follow nobody or like nobody.

There are also photographers who get many likes, but who almost never give any, for instance Junku Nishimura.

The "like" thing on Flickr is its for me the least valued part of Flickr, especially because of the by olifaunt described aspect. As an indication of quality it is completely worthless.

Erik.

 

[brbo]

I think the only algorithm there is the fact that majority of its users suck as photographers. Can't tell a difference. Same as any online community.

I can honestly say that flickr algorithm hasn't served me a single photo from a person that I would say he or she sucks as a photographer. In my experience, the number of photos from "recommended" photographers are quite low in number compared to the photos you get from the photographers you follow.

(my experience might not be very representative as I try to follow as little photographers as possible, I never post or subscribe to any of the groups and never leave any comments or faves)

edit: It just dawned on me that I might actually have a very poor taste and that it's possible that all of the very few flickr recommended photographers actually... suck. Which actually just shows that flickr's "recommended photographers" algorithm is quite good.

 

[Bille]

Since I've had a pro account on Flickr since 2009, all I read out of this is that my annual fee is being doubled. Which isn't terrible; it's still a bargain. Whatever else they offer as gimmes with the new setup is just another plus that I may or may not take advantage of.

G

I dont know. 50$ a year for the rest of your life - or more whenever they decide to - or they delete your images... uncool.

 

[olifaunt]

There are also photographers who get many likes, but who almost never give any, for instance Junku Nishimura.

The "like" thing on Flickr is its for me the least valued part of Flickr, especially because of the by olifaunt described aspect. As an indication of quality it is completely worthless.

Moderated groups are for me the most valuable aspect of Flickr. Some of them are very well curated and of high quality, and it is difficult and (to me) valuable to get an image accepted.

Faves are less valuable, but I do find them valuable because I can be blind to the faults of my own images - most of the people who usually fave my stuff are good photographers I respect, so if I post an image that I think is good and get significantly fewer faves than I expected, it is sometimes a good reality check, and often I come see the problem with the image later. I feel my portfolio has improved a lot because of this. But one needs to take faves with a grain of salt - I do keep some images despite few faves, and I have removed some of my most-faved images because I felt they were clichés, so there is that.

 

[Erik van Straten]

if I post an image that I think is good and get significantly fewer faves than I expected, it is sometimes a good reality check, and often I come see the problem with the image later. I feel my portfolio has improved a lot because of this. But one needs to take faves with a grain of salt - I do keep some images despite few faves, and I have removed some of my most-faved images because I felt they were clichés, so there is that.

The judgment of outsiders about a photo is impure. That's why photos of naked women get a lot of likes. The maker has to decide for himself whether a photo is good or not. If you are quickly bored with a photo that you have made then it is not good.

Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

The judgment of outsiders about a photo is impure. That's why photos of naked women get a lot of likes.

This could lead to a kind of funny syllogism... 😉

Joking aside, the faves, the likes (and the emphatic comments from people coming out of the blue and/or suddenly wanting you to join a group they are admin of) are the poorest features of Flickr indeed.

 

[bulevardi]

I dont know. 50$ a year for the rest of your life - or more whenever they decide to - or they delete your images... uncool.

Except the images... it sounds like a retirement savings plan !

 

[ruby.monkey]

I dont know. 50$ a year for the rest of your life - or more whenever they decide to - or they delete your images... uncool.

$50/year for as long as you consider it worth the money, and the freedom to move all your photos to another platform whenever you wish. Neither cool nor uncool.

Ultimately you're going to have to pay one way or another to have your photos on-line.