Flickr set to destroy groups.

[tunalegs]

True. But weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and thinking up hyperbolic thread titles is much more fun than working out how to use something.

Some people enjoy good design. Some people couldn't care less.

 

[pkreyenhop]

I like the new layout: it's simple, clean and I don't have to read the useless discussions if I don't want to.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Strangely enough, flickr's new emphasis on the photos means we see a lot less photos.

I mean look at that. It's just pathetic.

The group's main page - we see only two full photos without scrolling. One of them won't load. Only two topics visible in discussions before you have to click on "more discussions". This is really amusingly sorry.

I really like it compared to the old one. Page loading isn't that slow for me 1-2 seconds.
I guess if you want to see more photo's you click 'hide news' if you want to read more discussions you click on more discussions–much more logical in my opinion.

I get that some people may not like change, but I think Flickr is responding to the competition especially from sites like 500px where the images are taking precedence, in my eyes the new Flickr is becoming less of a social network and better for displaying work.
In the three years I'd been using it I'd only uploaded 80-90 images, in the last month about 40 or so.

Just my opinion, of course some may like the old pink/blue text and postage stamp images look and for them ipernity seems like the way to go; I'm finding it a better layout even if it is a little slow and buggy.

 

[c.poulton]

i think the whole re-design of flickr is way more attractive than the old format/style...it still does pretty much what it did before only now we have to access it differently...it's new learning but nothing major.

I'm with Back Alley on this one - it's really not that bad and I prefer viewing images 'big' on the screen instead of tiny thumbnails. You soon get used to the new layout...

I like the new layout: it's simple, clean and I don't have to read the useless discussions if I don't want to.

Yep, no problems for me there - for groups it's all about the images for me, not the discussions...

 

[j j]

Some people enjoy good design. Some people couldn't care less.

It wouldn't be a Flickr knee-jerk rant thread without this trite statement.

 

[k__43]

I don't mind waiting for sites to build up .. it's fast enough. It could be faster tho.

What I do mind is that I can't use flickr on my mobile browser anymore cos I've got a limited data contract (well I can load as much as I want but after 300MB they cap my bandwidth to dial-up modem speed). Ever since they changed the layout I hit that limit every month.

Flickr is also very buggy the last days with editing titles and comments .. I often got the "There was an error" message.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Yes I really don't see how the old Flickr represented 'good design' it displayed your images as 50 pixel squares even if you shot panoramic format.
Can anyone really cite the old Flickr as 'good design' look at old vs new...

Personally Flickr has gone from an ugly way to view pictures quickly, to a better way to present them albeit slow and a little buggy.

 

[k__43]

Yes I really don't see how the old Flickr represented 'good design' it displayed your images as 50 pixel squares even if you shot panoramic format.
Can anyone really cite the old Flickr as 'good design' look at old vs new...

Personally Flickr has gone from an ugly way to view pictures quickly, to a better way to present them albeit slow and a little buggy.

First off: You compare an old home screen with a new photo stream design, that comparison is flawed.

The new home screen design is what bothers many people. I'm with you thumbnail squares aren't cool .. but they were only on the home screen and that made it easier for me to see the news at one glimpse.

The new look of the photo stream is just annoying .. you kinda had to put a lot of work into it with your faux passepartouts there. So you actually admitted that the new design is so ****ty you have to frame your shots into white borders to make it acceptable.

 

[tunalegs]

It wouldn't be a Flickr knee-jerk rant thread without this trite statement.

Well if you appreciate design, I'm sure you could explain what aspects of the design you like. Others certainly have.

But if you're just going to go "this is a dumb topic because I say so" - you get the trite response you deserve.😛

 

[tunalegs]

Well let's do a more even comparison.

Current group pool with small thumbnails selected. Don't like small thumbnails? Well you can choose medium thumbs. Or large ones. Want the old square thumbs? You have that option too.

Loads fast. Need to skip back a couple pages to find a photo you saw yesterday? Or just plain want to see what was posted a few pages back? Easy. Just click the page number. Loads quickly.

A decent amount of gutter space. Images are nicely separated, overall look is clean and simple. Easy to browse at a glance.

replaced with this:

Don't like large thumbnails? Have limited bandwidth or a slow connection? Too bad. There are no options. Too little gutter space, images run right up against each other. Portrait photos are displayed smaller than landscape photos.

You can't simply click on page five and be on page five, so it's slower to use, as well as load.

Speaking of speed of use, the inability to select smaller thumbnails is another disadvantage. Probably not to the casual user, but to somebody like me who needs to find reference material quickly for illustrations, smaller thumbnails mean finding the information I want faster. Scrolling through big photos is a lot slower. Say I want to find a specific type of utility pole for a drawing and I go to a powerlines group. With smaller thumbnails I see a lot more photos without scrolling and they load faster. Can't do that with huge thumbnails and semi-endless scrolling.

The worst part of it though is probably the odd decision to throw away the group home pages.

With the current iteration, I can click on a group and get a good idea instantly what to expect from the group. I can see a dozen images, I can see several discussion topics - and if I want to read the group description all I have to do is scroll down.

It's well laid out, it's simple, and quick to use.

By contrast, with the upcoming change, there is no group home page. There's only this sidebar. And when it's open, you only see two discussion topics, and it hides pool photos. So you don't know much about the group until you click around to find info you used to be able to see by just scrolling down.

So far as I can see the only improvement here is that the group rules are always easy to find since they now have their own button. But that's about it.

The layout is obviously less quick in use and less informative at a glance. I would also say it's much uglier, but everybody has their own opinions on that.

 

[Photo_Smith]

First off: You compare an old home screen with a new photo stream design, that comparison is flawed.

The new home screen design is what bothers many people. I'm with you thumbnail squares aren't cool .. but they were only on the home screen and that made it easier for me to see the news at one glimpse.

The new look of the photo stream is just annoying .. you kinda had to put a lot of work into it with your faux passepartouts there. So you actually admitted that the new design is so ****ty you have to frame your shots into white borders to make it acceptable.

Sorry but the only view I could find was the old home screen but the criticism stands the old one only showed 50 pixel squares even if you shot panoramic– that is just beyond awful, unusable.

Tiny thumbs may load fast, but the new bigger correctly proportioned images as a massive improvement on every page, I can see the images without having to open them; many times before I'd have to open loads..

Also I don't need to frame my shots in white boarders to make them 'acceptable' I just like them like that for now;
If I want I can leave them off and they still respect the original photographs format or change them to rainbow coloured if I want-more customisation is what the new approach allows.
Being given the freedom to display them on any colour background is something that gives me a level of control over the homepage/land site i never had before.
Also that and being able to have a editable banner are also nice touches.
Flicker has gone from an unusable mess to a passable, usable if slow way of showing your work as YOU want it–its a massive improvement over the 50 pixel images on white b/g with pink and blue text...

I find it the same with the new group view, tiny images only a cryptic subject line to show the discussion with no sample of the first few sentences, I find the only good thing about the old approach is the familiarity, the site is growing up IMO.

I can understand the speed gripes and to a certain extent the infinite scroll vs pages, but to hold up the original design as some sort of panacea-I'm pretty sure it's not a design classic!

 

[tunalegs]

Sorry but the only view I could find was the old home screen but the criticism stands the old one only showed 50 pixel squares even if you shot panoramic–just beyond awful.

You do know that flickr got rid of the 50x50 thumbnails in 2009 right? You've had the option to display them in several sizes since then.

Now flickr is taking away that option to display them at the size you want.

They've already taken away the option to display images on your photostream the way you want, so actually you have less control over how your photos are viewed now than you did a few months ago.

As well with the new justified view, portraits are always shown smaller than landscapes. Which arguably, is almost as bad as cropping everything square. Not that anybody has had to put up with that since 2009 if they didn't want to.

 

[Photo_Smith]

You do know that flickr got rid of the 50x50 thumbnails in 2009 right? You've had the option to display them in several sizes since then.

Now flickr is taking away that option to display them at the size you want.

They've already taken away the option to display images on your photostream the way you want, so actually you have less control over how your photos are viewed now than you did a few months ago.

As well with the new justified view, portraits are always shown smaller than landscapes. Which arguably, is almost as bad as cropping everything square. Not that anybody has had to put up with that since 2009 if they didn't want to.

By default they displayed square 50 pixel wide on the landing page, I never found how to change that possibly they did get rid of that in 2009 but I'm sorry to say every page I ever saw had a tiny thumbnail by default; coupled with the sea of white and pink– absolute no go for good display, a joke really.
Just look at the images you've posted in this thread the little thumbs look plain awful-how could anyone think that is a good way to present their work?
Just look at your own example:

Tiny little postage stamps, can you see what they are photo's of? What about second row down third one in; is that a poorly sized panoramic? Or do we have to click on the little 50 pixel thumbs to actually see what the photo is?

I find that now I have total control in displaying my content exactly the way I want is a massive improvement-the extra control since the change is much better, especially the banner.

With the new justified view you can make the portraits exactly the same size by uploading them on backgrounds.
I really don't get the whinging; for me it's been a very much better experience-Flickr shows my images as I want, something up until recently it just didn't do.
I can't see how anyone can point to the original as being an example of good design.

 

[jarski]

looking all your screenshots and explanations, still cannot fathom how someone can defend the old microthumbs and useless white spaces in the name of good design.

Now flickr is taking away that option to display <something that was there before>.

dont count on that. they have done the big overhaul now. future changes with upgraded platform aren't that difficult to implement.

 

[colyn]

been using it all day...works fine...

Same here.. Works fine and fast for me...

 

[j j]

Well if you appreciate design, I'm sure you could explain what aspects of the design you like. Others certainly have.

But if you're just going to go "this is a dumb topic because I say so" - you get the trite response you deserve.😛

I like to scroll through photos without clicking to the next page after only a few pics.

I like seeing photos at a decent size without clicking each one.

I like to look at several photos without having to click back through them all to regain my place.

I like that the pages use the full width of my screen.

I like how the new style loads 25 pages worth of the old style so it is quicker to use not slower; I like how few indignant detractors have noticed this.

I like that I can see single photos on a page that is not dominated by comments but that I can see comments if I wish.

I like that landscape orientation pics view much larger; I don't like that portrait pics view much smaller.

I like to see the content of panoramic pics.

I like how picture content is the focus not the social media aspect and stats and keywords and camera used and so on.

I like that so many Sets fit on one page; it makes them easier to find.

I am glad to see the back of the square thumbnails that used to cut out the middle of the pic and display only that.

I don't like the new slideshow.

I would like to be able to customise my pages; I expect that will come in time.

I don't like that Flickr didn't offer a retro view to keep people such as you happy.

 

[j j]

And I like the new navigation tabs. I forgot that one until I looked back at your screengrab examples and saw the great big buttons and scroll-down menu tabs that make it so easy to find stuff now.

 

[Sparrow]

Some like it some don't

 

[Photo_Smith]

Some like it some don't

Exactly, and as it's free pretty much you have choice. Obviously the changes are to try and fend off the challenge from sites like 500px which have been eating their lunch for over a year.

The interesting thing is although Flickr has less hits, those that do land there stay longer.
It's early day's for site analysis. It feels like the change will at least stabilise the slow decline after those who don't like the change have left.

 

[j j]

Thanks for posting Stewart. It shows that Flickr was in a steep and protracted decline up until the redesign and has leveled off since. But that is for ranking in comparison with other much-used sites. It doesn't show qualitative data.