|
Search this group's discussions
|
NIPSAration and Sharing
|
One of my friends recently had his flickr account designated Not Safe In Public Areas (NIPSA) because he had a few flyers and a card exchange on his photostream. The images themselves represent a small portion of his stream but means that his whole stream is not searchable nor will any of his pictures show up in any public areas. This was done without warning. If there had been a request to make his artwork private, I know he would have complied. This is a photo sharing site, we all know that.
Before the lovely Brock bounces in to slam the door on this thread, I want to add that I know this has been discussed extensively here. I am not an artist, and do not have any doodles or paintings in my photostream, but I do have around 40 screengrabs of Flickr favourites for example, so yesterday I wrote to Flickr Help by email and this is the reply:
One publicly posted non-photo is enough to have your whole photostream NIPSAed, though we tend not to flag accounts unless they are brought under review for some reason. If you don't want your account marked NIPSA, it would be best
to remove or privatize those non-photos in your stream.
Marking photos as private or visible only to friends/family is okay because then they don't show up in public areas of the site anyway.
Like nearly everyone else I know on Flickr, I have screengrabs of the following on my Flickr account:12 mosaics of my Flickr favourites, like this one, my Flickr ID badge made with one of fd's Flickrtoys, several uses of the Flickrfont including brendadada is having a massage, two photos captioned using fd's captioner. Plus the UK and Europe Flickrverse maps which people annotate to show their location:
If you click on any of those links and you are not on my friends list, you will be unable to see them. I am not about to risk having my whole photostream NIPSA'd for a few screengrabs.
But what of the people who have made Flickr great with their creative use of the Flickr API? I am thinking specifically of GustavoG's fantastic non-API work like his photostream overviews, jbum and his amazing posters and his incredible Time Graphs plus anything made with fd's flickr toys.
Sharing is as big a deal with Flickr than photos. Arguably it's bigger. The social networking, especially the social tagging side of Flickr is the single thing that has made it storm the blogosphere and created the buzz which made it so very valuable to its users and as a commodity on the internet. If all these images are to be made private, what use is making the API available?
I have written to Flickr for clarification by email, but I wanted a wider discussion here, hopefully with people who use the API or who use games or images made with the API. What do you all think of this?
Originally posted at 2:41AM, 1 December 2005 PDT
(permalink)
brendadada edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
NIPSA - Not In Public Site/Search Areas
I've seen Site and Search used in acronym description before.
This has been discussed extensively already, but one of thethings that I thought came of it was that if you marked these images "May offend" yourself, then they are automatically marked NIPSA and so would save your being marked totally so.
That help email seems to suggest that isn't the case. I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of clarification of that...
And you know I won't jump on you, Bren. There's a lot of wub in the room...
;)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Brock, I'm not an artist and really think arty stuff needs to go somewhere else. We are about photos. But this ruling is odd.
a) a whole photostream was NIPSA'd without warning or explanation, not just individual images.
b) the images we have all made with the API are clearly not photos.
I don't want my photostream NIPSA'd, so that means I can't share, for example, the European locator map.
(wtf is wub?)
(I know you will jump on me, it's only a matter of time, you big softie you.)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
why did you mate not mark the individual images NIPSA? then his entire stream would not be marked?
it's my understanding that if you mark your non photo images NIPSA you are ok. Tell me if i'm wrong.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
styler* edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
|
a): Yeah, that's how they do it. I have always been of the opinion that people should be notified of being marked NIPSA, but I imagine that flickr is scared of the workload that it would potentially create:
To tell someone is fine, but they will want to know why. So you have two options:
Auto generated email or two to say "You've been marked NIPSA for image display reasons by staff. See FAQ/TOU (etc and a link)"
or
"flickr users have marked your image for NIPSA"
The problem is that I can't see a way to notify people without it instantly generating a Help by Email query and so require staff time and a personal and individual attention. That is a phenomenol workload just based on all the NIPSA cases that I have seen (whether marked or not).
There is talk of a revised system in the works (Stewart has already stated that they think that they have fixed the "Malicious NIPSA" thang in the large part) and I guess it requires patience.
It is tricky, though. You can only tell if you are NIPSA by checking the "Everyone's photo's" page, but at least there is a way to check, I suppose. It's not ideal, and it is changing but there is a certain amount of muddying of the waters at present as to the 'right' way to act with all the various grey areas.
"(I know you will jump on me, it's only a matter of time, you big softie you.) "
Are you flirting, Bren? ;)
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Brock (a group admin) edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Can you two just get a room? Too much wub here for me...
oh, and Brenda is right. Fickle Flickr.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No no no, there is SO much misunderstanding about all this.
Ellipse: my mate had NO IDEA that uploading a few scans of flyers might have this effect.
Also, how on earth does someone mark their own photo NIPSA? Huh? I have no idea how to do it and I'm pretty au fait with Flickr. Don't tell me to use the 'may offend' button. There is absolutely no reason why a screengrab of my favourites should offend anybody.
I think people need to be asked to make their art private, if it's an issue. Or Flickr should send out a blanket warning, by email, to everyone.
But the issue for me is much, much larger. What about all the screengrabs nearly EVERYONE has on their streams of Flickr badges, business cards, magazine covers etc?
I don't want to rehash all that old stuff from the other thread about NIPSA per se, I would like comments on how this affects things we make with applications using the API. The sharing side of Flickr.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Look people, WHOLE PHOTOSTREAMS are marked NISPA, not just individual screengrab things, or individual images. If you have any of these in your photostream, I would be worried. Seriously.
My WHOLE PHOTOSTREAM, nearly 2k photos could be taken out of all public areas of Flickr because I uploaded ONE screengrab of a Flickr toy. That is what I have been told. And that's my point. I have had to make the UK and Europe locator maps private.
Clearer now?
(Brock, if I flirt with you, I'm certain you'll be able to tell)
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
brendadada edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
just a thought:
could it be, that flickr blogged about the badge, which kind of encurages ppl to make one and of course upload it to their stream and flickr mentioned the group for the badge and now they are gonna mark everyones stream NISPA which has a badge in it?
if so i think something has gone wrong, seriously wrong.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My WHOLE PHOTOSTREAM, nearly 2k photos could be taken out of all public areas of Flickr because I uploaded ONE screengrab of a Flickr toy.
brendadada, I think that we (the flickeenos) have some (major) internal disconnect, because this isn't my understanding of our policy.
It's the wee hours here, so it will be a few hours before we can get back to you, but I think we've mixed our wires (internally).
Let me get back to you with the confirmation (or clarification or aplogy) before we go too much further (I'd especially like to avoid our very own Godwin's Law "It must be Yahoo..." because I think I told George I would shave my head the next time it happened).
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
definitely weird !!
I remember when this Interestingness thing started I had some 210 photos all together and the flickr ID badge ranked even like # 20 at the beginning. Until now I have five screenshots among my personal top 200 (at # 16, 34, 57, 60 and 170) of 336 pics.
If these shots are not welcome, how do they make it into any Interestingness ??
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Brenda, you know I cannot see your linked pics, as they are obviously already private.
I am not going to do this with my screenshots until I get an intelligent explanation how a screenshot can be *interesting* in any way.
And if these flickr folks do not know themselves what they really want, I will happily leave for another provider where the message is clear.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
heather thanks, I will await your reply to the email I have sent in reply to Ana's. And some blanket clarification as to where you are with this issue of non-photos is clearly necessary.
Non-photos as a hardline policy would exclude everything made with the API and all of GustavoG's flickrverse stuff, which I'm sure is not what you want.
widderson: an intelligent response, and not just a repeat over and over of 'Flickr is for photos', would indeed be helpful.
Flickr is indeed for photos but it is for sharing photos, and all that goes with that.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As it's eminently possible to share even photos marked private in groups, why is NIPSA a real obstacle to sharing? It doesn't prevent people from accessing your photostream. It doesn't prevent you from blogging your photos. It doesn't prevent you from sharing your images in groups. It doesn't prevent your contacts, friends and family from seeing your images. It doesn't delete your images.
It has a very minimal impact on functionality in general and sharing in particular. So why the fuss?
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
teotwawki edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Widderson - "interestingness" is determined by some sort of algorithm that seems to be related to views, favourites, the number of comments, and suchlike. Since deciding what's a screengrab and what's not is a fairly difficult thing for a program to do (unless you've got a solution, remembering that not all screengrabs are tagged as such), then screengrabs may be considered "interesting" under those criteria, since to the computer, it's just another JPEG.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Matt:
I know. But at least my flickr badge is tagged absolutely correct for that matter, and it is still # 57. Also, if you remember the first days of Interestingness and the way it is now, you can clearly recognize differences about the preferred subjects. So, there is some chance for the algorithm to ‚read’ the surface of a pic.
But the major point is, as long as I have screenshots and such in my personal interestingness stream, which ARE open for public, how could I get the idea, I might get NIPSA'd, when uploading another one?
If flickr changes the policy, it is up to flickr staff to make clear to every member about the consequences what posting of these unwelcome images will cause - before getting NIPSA'd.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
teotwawki I am getting really tired of reapeating this now.
The 'fuss' as you call it, is because a WHOLE PHOTOSTREAM can be taken out of all public areas on Flickr, not just individual images. I don't want my WHOLE PHOTOSTREAM to be taken out of the public areas on Flickr because I uploaded a copy of Gustavo's histogram of my photostream. You might not care about that, I do.
I have no problem with individual images being NISPA'd. None whatsoever.
This thread is NOT about NIPSA in general. I am making a specific point about screencaptures of Flickr toys and mosaics. The sharing side of Flickr, memes etc. How is that difficult to understand?
And anyway, you have said you don't care about this several times. What is the point in coming in here and saying you don't care about it again? Huh?
I am going outside now, with my camera.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
:P
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Before I go, one thing. If my whole photostream is taken out of all public areas on Flickr, anytime we are out and about, I won't be able to say to people "Flickr.com tag newcastle' because none of my pictures will show up. None of them. At the momentg, your pictures will show up in a tag search of Newcastle, mine will, Topsy's won't.
Get it now? Or do you still not care?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I do care, B - as I explained to you when you asked me to contribute to this thread. I've flickrmailed you about this. No need for a falling out.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
the solution is pretty simple and i think it is on the way.
flickr needs to give a set of guidelines when you join the service.
these guidelines would explain NIPSA and how to avoid it. mostly, by marking marking any incidental non-photo images you upload as 'may offend'.
avoiding nipsa is very simple and you don't need to mark anything as private to do it, simply may offend.
the problem isn't the policy, the problem is that the policy is buried in the FAQ where nobody ever reads it until it is too late.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've tried to send message to Ana at flickrhelp as suggested previously to try and discuss my account and discover what I did wrong and how I can be unNIPSAed.
I'm hopeful that clarity will be found.
I'm puzzeled that flickr have dug themselves into this hole. The site is fairly and squarely a photographic site there this is undeniably the situation. The number of "artists scans" seems miniscle to the number of "proper photographs" so I'm surprised by the current hard line approach which seems to unecessarily cause alarm and fear in the community.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
gocarrt [deleted] says:
Stri, for what it is worth, in my thinking avoiding the NIPSA firewall CAN be easily accomplished, but I think the "may offend" button is interpreted by many users as "adult-oriented" offensive, not "not-a-photo" offensive...
I think many users don't see their own photos as "offensive' and are hesitant to self-report...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
so I'm surprised by the current hard line approach which seems to unecessarily cause alarm and fear in the community
Oh, is it really hardline or is that just your perception?
www.flickr.com/photos/tags/illustration/
From my experiences here, fear and alarm are usually raised by users who suddenly discover policies that have been in place for over a year.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
rvacapinta edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
|
I think many users don't see their own photos as "offensive' and are hesitant to self-report...
agreed, which is way flickr really really really needs to articulate what that "may offend" actually does and what nipsa is BEFORE people start posting shtuff.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Or perhaps change the wording a titch? "May offend" certainly raises hackles ("why should I have to mark my stuff offensive when it's not?" etc) but if you added a second phrase underneath: "Not a photo" (or something infinitely more clever) would do the trick.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
if you added a second phrase underneath: "Not a photo" (or something infinitely more clever) would do the trick.
well, see that would just be too easy, now wouldn't it?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
and maybe have a link to the NIPSA guidelines beside the may offend/non-photo link.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
quick question - when we're talking NIPSA-ing scans, does that include the scans I'm uploading of photos I've taken using film? And what about scanart - so if I scanned toastboy, does that count as a photographic image, or what?
(that's meant utterly seriously, not facetiously)
Does this mean that it should be recommended that anyone who creates a toy includes a "you can't post the results publically to flickr" disclaimer?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To me, scans are as much digital photographs as images taken with a digital camera. The fine art photographers for years have developed scanned images, especially notable: Katinka Matson, with her flower images that are incredible.
"Katinka Matson is an American artist who has been using technology to intricately study our relationship with nature and the world, and to adapt our perception to the ever-changing reality around us.
Thanks to the use of the CCD flatbed scanner invented in 1975 by Ray Kurzweil, Matson's works feature not only petals, stalks, and pistils, but also the rhythm and depth that these natural elements can express if set in certain positions, revealing a surprising reality. The main difference between Katinka's technique and standard photography lies in the way the subjects are illuminated and in the shadow cast around them, as both light and shadow contribute to drawing details and colors in a vivid way. "
I should not like to think that fine art photography, fine art scans, and fine art of the cutting edge are excluded from flickr because of limited understanding of "what is a photograph", an evolving and progressive, dynamic art form.
@Brenda: I know you are not discussing the "art" side of things on flickr with this topic, but I did want to stick up for artists here, ok? Recently I've found delightful scan art within flickr, and from some of my friends in this community. I'd hate to see them by the wayside as casualties of the continuing development of policy and terminology here.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
cobalt123 edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I take a lot of pictures of books, book covers, records, etc. These are taken with a camera, with actual digital data attached... will they go crazy about this?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jon© [deleted] says:
Nope, because they are photo's ;)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cobalt the art side of things has been discussed ad infinitum in other threads.
knautia thank goodness!! at last someone in this thread seems to have grasped what i am on about here. You wrote:
>Does this mean that it should be recommended that anyone who creates a toy includes a "you can't post the results publically to flickr" disclaimer?
That is my whole point. I have been asked to make all my non-photo images private. All of them. If I post ONE non-photo to Flickr, my WHOLE STREAM is likely to be made NISPA, not just the non-photographs.
Non-photographs in my stream include these:
[edited to remove thumbnails]
The first two are annotated by people I don't know. The third is made with one of fd's flickr toys.
I really don't believe that Flickr wants these sharing images taken out of public areas. That's the whole point of them, they are for sharing. And I don't want my whole photostream to be taken out of public areas, without warning, just because I have something like this in my stream.
[edited to remove thumbnail]
Or this:
[edited to remove thumbnail]
striatic an improvement to the whole system seems in order, and as I have said a number of times, I totally support the policy of Flickr being a site for sharing photos. But the balance is wrong at the moment.
Heather has said she will look into this and respond. I'll let you know when she does. Hopefully she'll post here too.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
brendadada edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
|
teotwawki :P
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i just want to know if heather is going to get the flickr logo shaved into her head
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I joined Flickr in July. I've been having great fun sharing photos, making mosaics, badges and all sorts of digital images including scans, composites, digital collages and scans of film photos.
I really don't know which offend and which don't. And I can't imagine going back over my entire stream trying to decide whether I need to click the 'may offend' button for fear of losing my whole stream.
I would leave Flickr if someone did a tag search 'Newcastle' and my images didn't come up because I have a Flickr mosaic somewhere in my stream that I've failed to mark as 'may offend' (or 'is not a photo'). Or if I did a tag search and half the interesting images (including API images) were missing.
And I would really hate to leave Flickr. Not least because it's how I know brendadada
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"If I post ONE non-photo to Flickr, my WHOLE STREAM is likely to be made NISPA, not just the non-photographs."
no, this is wrong
just mark your non-photos as may offend and this will not happen. Now granted may offend is a dumb term but it's all flickr has while they sort it out. but if you mark your non photos as may offend you will not have your whole stream marked.
now this is not ideal, but it works for now.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Or can you just make them private rather than mark as My Offend?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Does this mean that it should be recommended that anyone who creates a toy includes a "you can't post the results publically to flickr" disclaimer?
There should also be a similar warning on this Flickr page.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Leo Reynolds edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
|
The point is, I'm not sure which are non photos and I don't want to have to retrospectively mark them.
Nor do I want these images to be missing when I search using tags, not least because I don't know which ones are missing...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm not sure if explaining it one more time will help, but there is a difference between "public" and "searchable" for NIPSA. Your photo stream can be NIPSA, and I'm still able to view, save, order prints from, blog, comment on, see in group pools, and favorite every photo in it that I could do if it weren't NIPSA. The only difference is that I wouldn't come across your stream by accident in a tag search, or in Everyone's Photos.
Brendadada:If I post ONE non-photo to Flickr, my WHOLE STREAM is likely to be made NISPA
Actually, Brendadada, noone has said your stream is likely to be made NIPSA for having one single non-photo, just that that was sufficient for that to happen in the general and hypothetical case, but that it usually doesn't work that way. Then, Heather posted that even that wasn't the official word. Surely, SURELY, by now you can stop ranting about the possibility of being marked NIPSA at least until Heather replies?
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
matt edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
gocarrt [deleted] says:
What's the downside of flickr allowing a user to easily search within their own stream for all NIPSA photos?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
> these guidelines would explain NIPSA and
> how to avoid it. mostly, by marking
> marking any incidental non-photo images
> you upload as 'may offend'.
Yes, because non-photo images are sooo offensive.
If there was a "Not a photo" button in addition to the "May offend" button, this would all be easy to deal with.
But asking users to mark non-offensive items as offensive just to appease a handful (literally) of folks who actually give a hoot if you have photoshopped, scanned, or cartoony images in your photostream is just plain stupid.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, because non-photo images are sooo offensive.
If there was a "Not a photo" button in addition to the "May offend" button, this would all be easy to deal with.
Staff has acknowledged this issue and has said they intend to address it in the future. I wouldnt dwell too much on the terminology used but more on the implementation.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ah, for crying out loud, when will people listen?
The button is only called "May offend" because that was the first name they came up with. It's use and purpose has changed from that simple purpose, and now has many permutations.
The staff have acknowledged that the name is inappropriate to its current function. Many times. They have also acknowledged that its function isn't ideal also, and that changes are in the pipeline to improve it.
IN THE MEANTIME, perhaps people can just get over the damn fact it says "May offend" and pretend it is called "NIPSA ME!" or "Not exactly what is 100% wanted" or "Not sure of this image's relevance" or "Not actually a photo" or whatever floats your boat.
It has many purposes now, that button. This has been mentioned so many times that I am sick of hearing it. Yet people still jump on the name as a reason not to use it.
Come on people. Let's look to the long term. It will have a better name (and probably more buttons) in the future. Just fail to see the letters and pretend it's Sanskrit or something until then, will you?
Why thank you.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Um. What Vac said. But he appears to be calmer.
Although I probably enjoyed writing my post more...
:)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think I was more succinct. :)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
re: scans, in one of the many huge arguments about NIPSA/non-photos a looooong while ago, eric said "Scanned objects are fine, I think."
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
gocarrt [deleted] says:
OK, Brock, I'll buy into pretty much your whole "for cying out loud" post...anything wrong with a moratorium on the NIPSA process while the details are being worked out? At least no more entire streams being NIPSA'd for the time being?
Seem like that would be well-received...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Matt, rant is an emotionally charged choice of words...
I am an emotionally charged sort of person.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Small reminder.
Beta.
= work in progress
= will need tweaking
= in development
= still evolving
= chiiiiiiiill
:)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry, still doesn't solve it all for me. If I can't search (why is that accidental - seems central to me?), I can only find images by following threads or looking at groups or contacts. Strange and unattractive, surely any library of images must be searchable?.
And what do I do retrospectively to find all the images I ought to mark with Saanskrit :)
And I'm still not sure I know which they are. Or is that water under the bridge?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
> It has many purposes now, that button.
> This has been mentioned so many times
> that I am sick of hearing it.
For crying out loud, Brock, if seeing things multiple times is such an issue for you (not everyone reads every thread here every day), then perhaps you shouldn't be a group admin?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Reef, I'm able to search your photos, so surely you must be able to.
I'll give you the same advice I gave Brendadadada: wait for the official word to arrive, and don't get overly alarmed about what remains an entirely hypothetical situation.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
matt you wrote:
>Surely, SURELY, by now you can stop ranting about the possibility of being marked NIPSA at least until Heather replies?
Dear me, how very boorish. Made me laugh out loud and I needed that, really I did.
There is clearly an issue here, and it was important to raise it.
I have already had an email from Flickr telling me to make all my non-photos private, including the ones above, and I have done that. Got it now?
It has got very hot in here and for no good reason that I can see.
Chill, please people, all this squabbling is adding nothing to the essential point, which I will not repeat. But buttons are SO not the issue.
In fact any more puffing and posturing about art and buttons and whatnot and I will ask Brock to close the thread.
Thank you.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
One last thing.
ellipse: no, it is not wrong. That is the whole point of this thread. Please read my original post. We are waiting for clarification.
Thank you.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
gocarrt [deleted] says:
*clicks on Miles and chills*
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You got most of the clarification already - one person on the team didn't understand how this should work. It's a simple, honest mistake. We're sorry.
Obviously one (or even several) non-photos are ok (to be precise, non-photos are ok all the time, they just may not be included in search results. More on non-photo stuff here.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@shining example here:
thanks for answering my question
Obviously if it is so hard for active pro members and admins to figure all this out, it surely is all the more important that new members and those visiting flickr easily find answers to such questions. If I were a new member and thought I'd have to search and search in "ad infinitum" threads for answers, I'd give up. I know that this may have been brought up in flickr help, but it's still worth a reminder in Central: "sticky" topics would greatly help in this particular group, wouldn't they?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There is an easy solution for some of the problems. Just make a photo of your screen. Then you have an legitimate photo to upload and nobody has a right to complain.
But I think it is fully absurd that I have to replace a good quality screen capture with a much lower quality photo just to avoid problems with misguided policy.
And I think that almost every serious flickr member has some non photos in his photo stream.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Andreas Helke edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Reading this discussion, a couple of thoughts occur to me. The first is, if accounts are marked NIPSA in an inconsistent manner* (i.e. only if they are "brought under review for some reason"), one could gain the perception that being NIPSAed is being used as a punishment, or at the very least is inherently unfair.
Secondly, if one is unfortunate enough to be NIPSAed, is there anyway to become unNIPSAed? If you remove the offending images, can you be returned to the world of public consumption?
Because, lets be clear, for a lot of users, Flickr is a social experience which depends on ones photographs being available for serendipitous discovery.
Is a second button, which would place "non-photos" in a seperate, but searchable and discoverable, realm a possibility?
(as an aside, perhaps someone would care to address the question of when a "non-photo" begins. Why is using photoshop to enhance a sunset acceptable, while using it, say, to put monkey heads on one's friends bodies seemingly not. Both results are equally artificial. And what makes a scan a "non-photo." A scan of a 3D object produces a result which is very photographic, and a scan of a photo seems to be fine).
*One publicly posted non-photo is enough to have your whole photostream NIPSAed, though we tend not to flag accounts unless they are brought under review for some reason. If you don't want your account marked NIPSA, it would be best
to remove or privatize those non-photos in your stream.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
niznoz edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I just want to throw my two cents in the fire.
I understand everything that has been said here. I understand how the "may offend" button works, and why Flickr wants only photos in public searches.
However, I feel there's too much grey area here, and in fact, it feels a bit like discrimination. A sculptor can take a photo of their work and post it on Flickr. A stained glass artisan can take a photo of their work to share. Same with a quilt maker.
However, if your artwork is a drawing or a painting, you're not welcome in public searches. What seems extra funny (or sad) is that it appears to be fine if you take a picture of somebody holding up that picture. Or take a picture of it hanging on the wall.
The message here, in its most ludicrous form, is that you can not present that picture without anything surrounding it.
Again, I understand what Flickr is striving for. However, I find most cellphone shots to be more offensive in public searches than somebody's artwork.
I have to chuckle that a good chunk of artwork is being discriminated against on a site promoting photography, as photography has long been discussed in the "is it art" debate.
I'm glad this conversation is happening, and I have faith that Flickr will make it all right in the end. Till then, I've tucked my collages and drawings in the "friends & family" area.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Stewart you wrote:
>You got most of the clarification already - one person on the team didn't understand how this should work. It's a simple, honest mistake. We're sorry.
I have had no such clarification, only that two members of staff seem to have differing views, "some (major) internal disconnect". I am still no wiser, and don't know what you are apologising for. Thanks for your input though. I sent a pretty detailed mail yesterday and await a reply.
>Obviously one (or even several) non-photos are ok (to be precise, non-photos are ok all the time, they just may not be included in search results. More on non-photo stuff here.
Right, yes. But we know that, don't we? That is the whole point of my post. My flickrtoy screengrabs etc are still private until I hear that it is acceptable to make them public without risk of my whole photostream being NISPA'd.
I completely understand the dilemma here, and I'm sure that you and your team will get it right.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I do think that before an account is NIPSA'd a warning should be given. Certainly for PRO accounts; we've paid for the service, after all, and we care about keeping it.
It's the invisibleness of it that bothers me.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My flickrtoy screengrabs etc are still private until I hear that it is acceptable to make them public without risk of my whole photostream being NISPA'd.
brendadada, Sorry, was out sick yesterday and unable to follow through.
Free your Flickrtoys! There is no risk of an entire account being NIPSA for the inclusion of a few nonphoto elements.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jon Bon Jovi [deleted] says:
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Small reminder.
thanks for the reminder awfulsara!
Beta.
= work in progress
= will need tweaking
= in development
= still evolving
= chiiiiiiiill
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
heather, thank you for this statement!
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks heather, hope your feeling better. ;-))
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
heather wrote:
>Free your Flickrtoys! There is no risk of an entire account being NIPSA for the inclusion of a few nonphoto elements.
Thank you for that, you were very prompt, despite your day out. Hope you're feeling better now.
Clarified. Thank you!
Maybe Brock you can now close this thread? Obviously I don't mind if you don't, but it's sorted as far as I'm concerned.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'll lock it if it doesn't naturally die...
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Brock (a group admin) edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
