flickr view counts?
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 9K
Black
Photographer.
Quotes Eric Kim, who makes his money from relying on followers, favourites, views and likes on his social media 🙄
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Favorite and comments still account (if not solicited).
# of views, no so much.
# of views, no so much.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I've noticed certain photos of mine suddenly getting more views, so maybe it's the way their search feature is set up. It is odd though, to have a day with almost a thousand views, and not having posted something new in over a week.
PF
PF
msbarnes
Well-known
I think it is the way they count the views because I've noticed that the views aren't so much concentrated on select images but a little bit of ALL/most of my images. I think that if someone sees your image in a group/stream/set/search, then it is counted.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
All very well getting these inflated views, I knew it couldn't be me, what about those zero days that keep popping in?
Why am I still paying? The stats were my justification, mainly, now they are fantasy, I don't need to pay for that I can dream.
Why am I still paying? The stats were my justification, mainly, now they are fantasy, I don't need to pay for that I can dream.
msbarnes
Well-known
Are the stats free now? Or just for paying members?
lam
Well-known
I totally just gave these cat photos "Explore"
CactusJuice
Member
Free or not, I've barely touched my flickr account since Ms. Mayer and crew put in that hideous "re-design".
MikeAUS
Well-known
You are on the $money$ there ...
kbg32
neo-romanticist
He makes money by teaching workshops, etc.. One does not make money on social media sites unless there is some advertising linked to it. He has sponsors, sure. So does Steve Huff and dozens more. One may not like his photography, but not having any need to take workshops myself, he seems like a pretty down to earth guy with reasonably good intentions.
j j
Well-known
Did/do people put photos on Flickr in order to accumulate stats? That's an aspect of photography I had not really considered. It nice to get a few hits and comments but isn't it mostly an indication of how much tagging you do and how many groups you post in?
The old system accumulated views whenever people clicked to and fro through the pages. Were people looking twice or were they just navigating pages forward and back? Did the old stats record when folks looked at the multi-photo pages? If not, could someone check every image you posted and not appear in the stats?
All stats are flawed. It's just that now Flickr has new flaws instead of the old flaws.
Perhaps they should have a bonus point system for individual photos that people click on as well as the regular stat of how many photos are viewed in a set or stream? Would that make people happier?
The old system accumulated views whenever people clicked to and fro through the pages. Were people looking twice or were they just navigating pages forward and back? Did the old stats record when folks looked at the multi-photo pages? If not, could someone check every image you posted and not appear in the stats?
All stats are flawed. It's just that now Flickr has new flaws instead of the old flaws.
Perhaps they should have a bonus point system for individual photos that people click on as well as the regular stat of how many photos are viewed in a set or stream? Would that make people happier?
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135572
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135572
Since the great new site, yesterday i deleted all but 3 pix.
I will make my own blog elsewhere.
My real friends will look.
I hate the way Flickr is now..
as B.S sez "It sucks!".
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135572
Since the great new site, yesterday i deleted all but 3 pix.
I will make my own blog elsewhere.
My real friends will look.
I hate the way Flickr is now..
as B.S sez "It sucks!".
farlymac
PF McFarland
I originally went "Pro" on Flickr for the increased storage. The stats are interesting, but not something I look at more than once a week. Still, I see that the old "Zero Day" points keep cropping up. They never will figure that one out.
PF
PF
sevres_babylone
Veteran
That would explain the surge in views for my pic of a local Toronto rock band called "Teen T*ts Wild Wives" (my asterisk; I don't know if rff censors). When I checked the stats almost all the views are from flickr searches for either the first half or the last half of the name. Not getting any faves from these views either🙂
back alley
IMAGES
my views are up on old and new images alike...so are comments and faves...a bit.
Black
Photographer.
I see more about him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and even the Leica blog (networking & doing interviews, philosophising and providing links) than I do actual photographic output. It would be nice if it was the other way around - I might be more inclined to consider one of his workshops then.
And what does him being a down to earth guy have to do with the price of fish? I'm down to earth with reasonably good intentions. I hardly publish anything and whore myself around on social networks. What am I doing wrong? *mulls over Leica sponsorship and workshops*
* to be taken with a pinch of salt.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I agree with what j_j says above: "All stats are flawed. It's just that now Flickr has new flaws instead of the old flaws."
I was interested in stats. But I think the earlier system had its flaws in the sense that because the "thumbnails" were small before, people would click because it looked interesting. They might well have regretted doing so if the full image was not what they expected or hoped for. So those stats really didn't tell me that much. But the new status are even more useless-- sometimes reflecting that something shows in a search, for instance.
Back to my "Teen T*ts Wild Wives" example. I expected when I posted the pic, that it would show up in a lot of searches, to the disappointment of many a searcher. But those weren't showing up in the stats very often as views. Now there is a steady number of so-called views each day.
In a way the change in stats is liberating for me; I don't care about number of views anymore.
I do care about "favorites" to some extent, especially when they come from people whose work, accomplishment, or critical taste I admire. (The last related to my impression of what else they fave).
Lastly, I don't understand all the disdain for Eric Kim. He's a photographer who has found a way to earn a living in photography, which I can't claim to be able to do. I follow him on facebook, where in addition to promoting his workshops, or writing about photography, he provides some interesting links to the work of other photographers and to articles worth checking out. I have never taken a workshop with him. I did meet him in Toronto when he invited local photographers to meet him for a beer. Pleasant guy. Most of the other people there had taken a workshop or workshops with him, and they seemed to like what they got out of it. Good for them. Good for him.
I was interested in stats. But I think the earlier system had its flaws in the sense that because the "thumbnails" were small before, people would click because it looked interesting. They might well have regretted doing so if the full image was not what they expected or hoped for. So those stats really didn't tell me that much. But the new status are even more useless-- sometimes reflecting that something shows in a search, for instance.
Back to my "Teen T*ts Wild Wives" example. I expected when I posted the pic, that it would show up in a lot of searches, to the disappointment of many a searcher. But those weren't showing up in the stats very often as views. Now there is a steady number of so-called views each day.
In a way the change in stats is liberating for me; I don't care about number of views anymore.
I do care about "favorites" to some extent, especially when they come from people whose work, accomplishment, or critical taste I admire. (The last related to my impression of what else they fave).
Lastly, I don't understand all the disdain for Eric Kim. He's a photographer who has found a way to earn a living in photography, which I can't claim to be able to do. I follow him on facebook, where in addition to promoting his workshops, or writing about photography, he provides some interesting links to the work of other photographers and to articles worth checking out. I have never taken a workshop with him. I did meet him in Toronto when he invited local photographers to meet him for a beer. Pleasant guy. Most of the other people there had taken a workshop or workshops with him, and they seemed to like what they got out of it. Good for them. Good for him.
mretina
Well-known
it is definitely counted as view now if the image is in the set of images result of a search. And this new counting is imo responsible for the peak in views as if the image is refreshed it can quickly add up as well.
This is very clear looking at the referrer breakdown.
I do not think it is the same for groups as I have noted less views on a picture once it is added to a specific group than in the past, meaning that less visitors (including myself) look through groups pic by pic but simply look at the new display layout and I also get faved photos with zero views, which is odd.
This is very clear looking at the referrer breakdown.
I do not think it is the same for groups as I have noted less views on a picture once it is added to a specific group than in the past, meaning that less visitors (including myself) look through groups pic by pic but simply look at the new display layout and I also get faved photos with zero views, which is odd.
Similar threads
