Flickr

boomguy57

boomguy57

Well-known
Local time
1:46 AM
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
845
Based on my unscientific tests, I have to say that flickr's "explore" is, on most days, a collection of utter garbage. Now, before someone says: "if you don't like it, then don't look", let me continue. I generally don't look at explore, but it just so happens that one of my images was chosen, and the views/comments/favorites I got on that image was overwhelming. So, I perused the entire 500 images that day, and each of the two days since. I have determined, through this, that 98% of those images are terrible. They are rife with technical issues: blurry, poorly exposed, focus is off, etc. There are also some shots which boggle the mind, like the dozen or so "facebook profile shots" by teenage girls, snapshots of trains and police vehicles, and of course lots of squirrel/pet shots. (As an aside here, a good many are emblazoned with their watermark, but I'd want my name as far away as possible from some of these images!)

Is this because flickr is flooded with bad images, because flickr's algorithm that determines "explore" is poor, or because people are posting their bad images and ruthlessly exploiting the quid pro quo culture of returning comments and simply spamming as many people as possible with inane comments so as to generate comments on their own shots?

I realize this is a bit of a rant, and nobody can probably even answer why. In the film days, these shots would A) not have been taken, or b) would have lived in a shoebox forever. Photography is now so accessible and popular that the world is flooded with billions of rubbish images every day!
 
Hahah, I know the feeling since I was also 'explored' once. There's apparently a group of members that know how to game the algorithm and use their 'social circle' to push it into the explore pool. I actually quite liked being explored, exposure never hurts your feelings... but when another picture of mine was a lot more successful recently without the 'explore' exposure, it did make me feel much better. If your picture got in there though without you even trying, be assured it was really good.
 
jippiejee said:
Hahah, I know the feeling since I was also 'explored' once. There's apparently a group of members that know how to game the algorithm and use their 'social circle' to push it into the explore pool. I actually quite liked being explored, exposure never hurts your feelings... but when another picture of mine was a lot more successful recently without the 'explore' exposure, it did make me feel much better. If your picture got in there though without you even trying, be assured it was really good.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I just wonder about flickr sometimes...it's good as essentially free cloud storage, but it seems like it has definitely slipped over the last few years. I remember it being better, but then perhaps I was just not as discerning about photography then...
 
I think most of this comes from marketing. While there are great photographers on Flickr whose work absolutely deserves the notice it receives, many of the shots are escalated based on the amount of promotional work the photographer puts in to the image. This includes social networking (building a huge group of friends likely to post in response to photos), participating in groups where people promote/view/critique work, taking photos which appeal to the masses (either in subject matter or stylistic trend), etc.

All that said, I personally think your analysis is a bit harsh. There are certainly images which receive way too much attention relative to other excellent work on Flickr but those which rise to the top usually do something right. Marketing only goes so far. :)

Here is a link to yesterdays Explores photos. I think there is plenty of good work here:

http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/04/28/
 
Even in those first ten there is the dolls, the fake squirrel-on-camera shot, the hyper-processed-to-look-old boring landscape shot, and the rabbit-looking-cute shot. And that isn't even debating the merits of the others. Sure, there are likely some good ones in there somewhere (I did say that one of mine made it, right? :D ) but the vast majority is simply trash that isn't even worthy of a discussion.
 
i'm a happy non-clicker of "explore" on flickr, nor "popular" on instagram, i just not give a flying duck about those shots. i use flickr as my cloud backup and photo album, not as a portfolio. also to check out what my contacts - these are good - are up to.
 
It's worth considering that these shots get to the top of the list, simply because a lot of people like them. The shock of the internet, for those who want a nice hierarchy with themselves at the top, is the sheer democracy of it.
 
Explore breakdown:
Girls - the Internet likes pretty girls
Dolls - Flickr is not an art gallery, people use it as a community to share non-photographic interests
HDR - the average person has terrible taste, see also: Thomas Kinkade
Gaming the system - there are, of course, ways to game the system
Landscapes, good and bad - there's a reason Ansel Adams has sold more books than Garry Winogrand, people like landscapes
 
I only post my bad images there or some band-shots to encrease popularity of the musicians. It´s not an art-gallery at all. Never clicked on "expore" yet.
George
 
I left flickr over a year ago because it is just like the average web: 99% crap, disgusting stupid nonsense. I had to look at 100 pictures to find a nice one.
"Explore" is filled with half naked pseudo poet girls and Uber-Saturated HDR shots. Its just ridiculous.

It's even worse when you get back from a Doisneau exhibition and "take a quick look" at Flickr.
 
umcelinho said:
i'm a happy non-clicker of "explore" on flickr, nor "popular" on instagram, i just not give a flying duck about those shots. i use flickr as my cloud backup and photo album, not as a portfolio. also to check out what my contacts - these are good - are up to.
Click to expand...

+1. I never "explore" or really look at photos outside my contacts. I use it the same way as well for the most part.

While no one knows the algorithm for "explore", i believe it must have something to do with the traffic to the photo, how many likes, and how bad the HDR is (kidding)
 
Flickr is a pretty neat thing as far as providing the world full of cameras with a place to share pictures and have a community based around pictures. It's like an opt-in vacation slideshow/family album.

As far as photography that is intelligent or striving to be more than just a cool picture it doesn't really fare so well. I think at it's core, the internet and computer in general are not really a adequate medium for sharing that kind of thing. As a democratic system it is not particularly suited to things that are above "average."
 
I joined flickr a number of years ago because I liked a lot of the film photographers there, and I wanted to keep track of their work. After a while I started posting my own images and writing descriptions of them, often about the location, what I was doing when I took the image, and often some information about the area or landmark as if I was explaining it to a visitor.

One of my film images hit the front page of Explore a number of years ago. It is a hypersaturated (hahaha!) photo of Melbourne's Southbank city precinct as the sun was going down, showing the city lights glistening off the river with a vivid blue evening sky backdrop. I was astounded when the views leaped into the thousands and dozens of people made comments! It was very flattering and encouraging. I'm not sure what the current state of Explore is, but at that time there were quite a lot of interesting and creative photos, and I was happy to have mine in their company.
 
It's not really a "photography" site. It's just a dumping spot. Not much to get hot about, if your expectations are low.

The images that are the creepiest to me are the posed doll shots (and how do they get into Explore?). *

There is some good stuff to dig out, though it's work to do it. Certainly, talent shines there.

- Charlie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom