Flickr set to destroy groups.

[tunalegs]

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.

Perhaps you should have read the words then. :angel:

Apparently photosmith didn't either. I guess I'll have to get another screen shot since some don't believe you can change the size of the thumbs at will.

Large, medium, small, and square. Nevermind justified, which IMO is about as bad as square, only uglier.

 

[sepiareverb]

Yet another thread that makes me glad I never got interested in Flickr. Never really saw the point of the place.

 

[goamules]

Interior decorators like the new look. File managers who look at a lot of pictures don't.

Personally, I hate the new interface. It's not about pretty colors, "modern", or other abstracts. I don't want Flickr to decide how many pictures I can see, and make me wait for large ones (mostly junk) to load. Instead, I, myself, like to quickly scroll through many, many thumbnails and only enlarge the ones I want.

I created and moderate this group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/868027@N25/ and once it goes to the "Facebook large tiles" look it will be very difficult to quickly scan to make sure people didn't load inappropriate pictures.

Ask yourself this: Do you set your home computer photo directory with small thumbnails or "large and pretty"??

 

[Photo_Smith]

Perhaps you should have read the words then. :angel:

Apparently photosmith didn't either. I guess I'll have to get another screen shot since some don't believe you can change the size of the thumbs at will.

Large, medium, small, and square. Nevermind justified, which IMO is about as bad as square, only uglier.

I read your words, I just don't agree with them😉

I still don't see how you can re-size all the images to full size by default and make them as good as the current look.
All the views you posted are an utter trainwreck, every single ugly space wasting view. Look at the top RHS one larger screen space deveoted to the gaps in between images than the images.
How are any of them a good way of displaying images? The bottom RHS -I guess it's the iPhone generation grid tiles effect-horrible!

Ask yourself this: Do you set your home computer photo directory with small thumbnails or "large and pretty"??

I have mine large how do you tell many similar shots apart in tiny thumbs? ask yourself this do you want tiny tiles where you can't see the subject matter and be forced to click to see?
A–Why not have a list view with a generic fast loading icon?
B– Is Flickr for showing images?

Of course those who hate it can always use Ipernity or something else, but I guess there are some who like to be upset and post that on forums.

 

[tunalegs]

I read your words, I just don't agree with them😉

I still don't see how you can re-size all the images to full size by default and make them as good as the current look.
All the views you posted are an utter trainwreck, every single ugly space wasting view.
How are any of them a good way of displaying images?

MAYBEYOUWOULDPREFERIFPEOPLETYPEDLIKETHISINSTEADOFWASTINGSPACEWITHLOWERCASELETERSORSPACES?
WEWOULDN'TWANTTHATSPACETOBE"WASTED"ITALLHASTOBEFILLEDUPASMUCHASPOSSIBLE.

Have you ever been to a gallery where all the images are pushed together frame against frame? No? Good reason for that. There needs to be some space between the images. It makes them easier to view. You don't want the viewers eyes to wander from the edge of one image right into the next image. All of the views above, save for the squares, are infinitely better ways to display images than the justified view with no gutter space.

 

[redisburning]

The interesting thing is although Flickr has less hits, those that do land there stay longer.

yeah because the ****tard who coded it did such a bad job it takes 4x as long to load anything.

infinite scroll is so ****ing stupid it baffles me how anyone can defend it. there are actually some good things about the new flickr design, but infinite scroll is so idiotic that it makes me want to do physical harm to inanimate objects.

 

[goamules]

I have mine large how do you tell many similar shots apart in tiny thumbs? ask yourself this do you want tiny tiles where you can't see the subject matter and be forced to click to see?...

Of course those who hate it can always use Ipernity or something else, but I guess there are some who like to be upset and post that on forums.

I have no trouble seeing a thumbnail, or a painting across a gallery. If I am interested, I move closer. There are millions of pictures on Flickr, are you telling me you think they all are important enough to take a close look?!

Your last comment is a typical factionalized argument: "If you don't like it just [don't look, leave, get bent, etc.] I'm not going to argue that your "interior decorator" perspective of the interface is right or wrong. I'll say it sux for me and many others, and we have as much right to explain why, as you do for why you love it. You sound like you're the one who likes to argue, so - I'm out

 

[tunalegs]

yeah because the ****tard who coded it did such a bad job it takes 4x as long to load anything.

infinite scroll is so ****ing stupid it baffles me how anyone can defend it. there are actually some good things about the new flickr design, but infinite scroll is so idiotic that it makes me want to do physical harm to inanimate objects.

Infinite scroll is good for constantly updating feeds, like twitter. But I agree it is just astonishingly, mind numbingly idiotic as used on flickr. Ridiculously, absurdly, monumentally, ****ing stupid. Really.

If I worked for flickr I'd be sure to leave this particular year off my resume. I wouldn't want to get laughed right out of an interview.😀

 

[Photo_Smith]

I created and moderate this group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/868027@N25/ and once it goes to the "Facebook large tiles" look it will be very difficult to quickly scan to make sure people didn't load inappropriate pictures.

Why?

Change the banner for some pictures of Petzvals and it'll look nicer.

 

[redisburning]

Why?
Change the banner for some pictures of Petzvals and it'll look nicer.

please explain how losing the group description and the discussion bit is an improvement.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I have no trouble seeing a thumbnail, or a painting across a gallery. If I am interested, I move closer. There are millions of pictures on Flickr, are you telling me you think they all are important enough to take a close look?!

Your last comment is a typical factionalized argument: "If you don't like it just [don't look, leave, get bent, etc.] I'm not going to argue that your "interior decorator" perspective of the interface is right or wrong. I'll say it sux for me and many others, and we have as much right to explain why, as you do for why you love it. You sound like you're the one who likes to argue, so - I'm out

I have lots of trouble seeing a thumbnail view, and often move in to look closer. Every artwork has a optimal viewpoint, normally close to the field of vision. There are millions of pictures created every day, and yes all I'm interested in deserve not to be 50 pixel thumbs– I do have trouble seeing detail in them.

Your last 'rant' should also be tempered by the fact that Flickr detractors seem to re hash this sad 'I hate the new look' over and over-I'm just replying to that-not starting it.

If you don't like a service don't use it, simple 😀

Also why brand my perspective as an interior decorator one? Why the nastiness? can't you make a point without little jibes?

 

[tunalegs]

You know there's reasons for thumbnails existing though.

 

[burancap]

Why? Change the banner for some pictures of Petzvals and it'll look nicer.

Andrew Moxom!

 

[Mackinaw]

Just tried it and I like it.

Jim B.

 

[bwcolor]

Yet another thread that makes me glad I never got interested in Flickr. Never really saw the point of the place.

I use it to store edited full size image backups. If I have a fire, I haven't lost my images.

Presentation is really a secondary thing and I also am not inclined to debate Flickr design given that I don't use it for presenting images.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Andrew Moxom!

Yes worth going to the group just to see Andrew's work. He has some over at APUG too I think.
Great stuff.

 

[redisburning]

I just went on google images for the first time in like a year.

guess what, they use infinite scrolling. and it's about 100 million times faster than Flickr. if flickr ran even remotely like that, I wouldn't be unhappy with the site.

the people coding the Flickr site are clearly idiots. I guess it's good that it's cratering, too, so that the next people who make a site hire some proper people to do their site. what a joke.

 

[bojanfurst]

I'm still trying to find out how you leave a group.

I haven't even tried to delve into how it changes moderating a group, but see several people are having trouble with it.

When you click on a group in the new layout, on the left hand side you get discussion topics, top contributors and top tags and than there is a red button that says "leave this group."

 

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by back alley
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...

Originally Posted by 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.

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

I basically use flickr.com as a cheap photo hosting site. Rarely spend any time there except in the one active group that I'm an admin on.

The new layout ... well, some people like it, which is fine, but I find it confusing and irritating. The new layout applied to groups ... Sorry, but for the group I admin which is almost entirely question and answer about image processing, the photo pool is a waste of time and the new format will get in the way.

If flickr keeps up with this direction in development, I'll move my photo hosting elsewhere and probably forget flickr exists. I have no issues with the fact that there are some people who like it, but the new layout is overly busy and annoying to my eyes. It's not how I like to look at photographs.

G

 

[Lauffray]

I just went on google images for the first time in like a year.

guess what, they use infinite scrolling. and it's about 100 million times faster than Flickr. if flickr ran even remotely like that, I wouldn't be unhappy with the site.

the people coding the Flickr site are clearly idiots. I guess it's good that it's cratering, too, so that the next people who make a site hire some proper people to do their site. what a joke.

Well Google and Flickr aren't at all equal in terms of people and resources so that comparison may be a little unfair. Yahoo has a reputation of choking the small companies it buys so even though they're a big company they may not be giving Flickr what they need to really take off.
I'm just saying this because I'm a developer in a big company, and while your reaction is perfectly understandable there's a lot that the outside world doesn't see before a product comes into the world.
Don't be quick to blame the developers, but then again they could be completely incompetent too, who knows 😀