|
now it says 12.000 - the counter must be mixed up...
- nice pic anyway!
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well. 12,000 anyway.
Viewing through Proxy servers will often produce massive view increments by continually pinging the page while they are trying to view the pictures.
There is no way of finding the source of the hits, as there are no tracking options available through flickr other than a Technorati/Blogpulse or other search to see if it has been blogged.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Be great if there was though, eh? Or at least if we could put our own trackers on a page, even if just the homepage.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
interesting...
well, another question i have is... if someone just blogged the image, and not link back to the actual flickr page its on, does it still register to the hitcount?
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If someone views your photo page, it will count as a visit. So they will have to have clicked trhough for it to increment. I suspect a proxy server is the cause.
Bren: There will be no tracking capabilities introduced to Flickr:
www.flickr.com/forums/ideas/22631/#reply112256
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I uploaded this family achive picture and as soon it was up there it was a 1000 views.. no reason for that only one other got a thousand now after some months but that was on the interestingness page.. so what
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
G o r a n [deleted] says:
Maybe because it was used on flickr's explore page
flagrantdisregard.com/flickr/scout.php?username=puja&...
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It more than likely got to the explore page as a result of the large number of hits ...
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
u-photo [deleted] says:
Maybe something is wrong
Originally posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
u-photo edited this topic 74 months ago.
|
|
Better a lot of added views than to the woes created when photos are missing entirely, right?
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think Brock is correct and that it's the result of someone coming in via proxy hitting the page (and again and again). We've seen this with a member posting 500+ of the same comment, Help by email (oh joy) and Report Abuse (again, oh joy).
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
my page this morning was rated very low on the explore page, around 145... now its at 60, which isn't still high enough to warrant over 12,000 hits.
hmmm
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Strange
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, would like somebody see my pics, just 10, I am a complete biginner, nobody ever seen them, 0 visit, hmmmmm need some encouragements!!!!
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wooow !!! my photo no 12 has 1 visit!!!! Is it possible???? So I really exist here!!!!
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Have you joined any other groups, zanettco? That's a good way to get a dialog going.
Try making some contacts as well. Give Explore a whirl and see if anyone's work strikes you. Comment on others' photos and you may get comments in return.
Originally posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 74 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks Yolise, will do as you say :)
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@zanettco: My suggestion is to join MiRea's Realm.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Good choice tuxcomputers.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Puja, thank you for bringing up this important point. It has been brought up many times in the past and I suspect will be brought up many times in the future. The typical response is one that misses the real question you are asking. It is chalked up to a privacy problem. What you are really asking for though is not who is viewing your photos, but where people are finding your photos. An important distinction and one where (not to oversimplify things) Flickr could easily provide you the information you are looking for while still protecting people's anonymity.
What flickr probably needs is some sort of a way to monitor your referrer info. This is a common feature available to every blog stat package that I'm aware of. It's pretty simple really. It's just a matter of pasting a tiny snipet of html code into your template and then you would be able to see not only where your photo was being blogged, but also where your views might be coming from from inside of flickr too. From Explore, for instance, or a group where your photo was being discussed, etc.
For photographers, knowing some of the places where your work is being shown (when this info is easily available) is an important thing.
There is this other photo sharing site thing called Zooomr. It's a lot like Flickr but has different features. Kris Tate the developer behind Zooomr recently added trackback features to his site. It took him about an hour to do this. Flickr of course is much larger and has bigger scale issues so if they were to initiate this it might take more than just one hour.
Flickr could choose, for instance, to simply provide you with a reports page that detailed the referring url of each visit to your page. This would be a very simple anonymous way for them to protect their viewers privacy while providing Flickr users with more information about where their photos were being shown both inside and outside of flickr.
It would be nice to actually have an explanation how providing someone their referrer information violates anyone's privacy at all. But I suspect that this is not the real reason why you are not being allowed this information. I'm not saying there's a nefarious reason. I just don't think that it's the privacy reason that keeps being bantered around.
Even as simple as Kris Tate's dropping a link on the photo (i.e. trackback is -- which provides zero private info) there seems to be some resistance to this idea of you knowing where your work is being shown both inside and outside of flickr.
My view is that transparency is a good thing not a bad thing. That you knowing where your art is being displayed both inside and outside of flickr ought to be something that you are allowed to see. If your photo is being talked about in a group somewhere at flickr and that is generating traffic, why shouldn't you be allowed to be part of that conversation? If someone blogs your photo what is the harm in your knowing this and being able to stop by the blog and say, hey, thanks for blogging my photo?
This is absolutely not a privacy issue. Knowing *who* saw your photo is a privacy issue. Knowing where an anonymous person saw your photo is not.
Originally posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
I don't think there is a post long enough to change this fact, Thomas.
Maybe just let it go, rather than trying to make the same points over and over and over again? People (Stewart being pivotal among them) don't share your point of view.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
a link to one of your previous postings on this issue would have been more appreciated, Thomas.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Puja --
There's three services I use to track who's linking to my photos. Here's a search for your main Flickr URL (www.flickr.com/photos/puja) on each of them:
1. Technorati
2. BlogPulse
3. Google Blog Search
At this point, though, most (if not all) of what they're turning up are posts within the Flickrverse or posts by you and your friends on LiveJournal, so it still doesn't answer where the mystery visitors might be coming from (if it's not a proxy bug as Heather suggested)
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"I think Brock is correct..."
*cough*
Give me my glory, would you?
;)
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
djwudi. Technorati, BlogPulse and Google Blog Search suck. I do use them of course, but they suck and are no comparison to having access to one's server logs. They are incomplete and lack serious functionality.
Brock, you quote Stewart and his statement that echoes statements you've made in the past about this being a privacy issue.
And yet I've never heard anyone actually address how providing anonymous referrer data is in any way a privacy issue. Anytime someone asks the question about how to know where there photo is blogged or some iteration of this the stock answer is that it would violate privacy to give you this info.
It does not violate anyone's privacy to tell them where their vists are coming from.
Yes, it would violate privacy to tell me *who* viewed my photo. It would violate no privacy issue to show me the referring url visits to my stream. This does not contain any personally identifiable information.
I would suspect that there are other reasons that Flickr might not want their users to have this level of transparancy with regards to where there photo views are coming from but you cannot make a valid case for privacy when providing anonymous referral urls.
It would be nice to know what those objections might be and why those objections might be superior to letting a photographer have access to information easily avaialable about where their work was being shown and discussed. This protects no one's privacy and feels unduly restrictive.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
Thomas: That is all (again) irrelevant- I never mentioned privacy, the bit I was pointing out was the "We will not be implementing it" bit.
So please, for GOD's sake, stop posting the same damn argument. I have read it a hundred times, and you cannot beat me into submission with it. There are many reasons I don't like the tracking idea, not least this one (you even get a name check...).
;)
I do NOT agree with your argument, Thomas, and never will. Let it go. For a number of reasons. And it is not necessarily any of yours or my business what flickr's reasons are for not implementing it. Why on earth do you feel that they need to explain their reasons to you? I'm sure if they wanted to, they would have by now. It's not like you haven't been pushing this issue an enormous amount, is it?
Lots of people in the forums, rightly or wrongly, dislike the privacy implications of being tracked in ANY form (even by flickr before they strip the ID's out of it), and that is a good enough reason as far as I am concerned. I have seen at least as many against it as posts asking questions about how some events (view rates, etc) occured. But certainly more against tracking than requests for it. A request about 13,000 hits is not necessarily or automatically a request for user tracking/referrer tracking and shouldn't be hijacked as such. This query was answered without needing it, was it not? By me, in fact, a lowly user and not even staff.
People are concerned about being tracked, and there is no real argument for tracking that fits with the ethos of the site. So rather than try and convince the concerned people, just don't offer it. It gives nothing to the site but paranoia and calculated view garnering - neither of which are good for Flickr in my opinion), so I fail to see the issue with leaving it off.
Bah. I'm even catching your 'wordy as hell' posting style...
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Brock (a group admin) edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
Thomas: And yet I've never heard anyone actually address how providing anonymous referrer data is in any way a privacy issue.
Many people read email and RSS feeds using online services on the internet or extranets. When they follow a link out of their mail or feed client to a webpage the referring URL may contains personally identifying information such as the name or organization of the visitor.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"I never mentioned privacy"
Brock, but you have in fact mentioned privacy in the past, hence the qualifier in my post "in the past."
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72057594120773203/#...
You and others are certainly entitled to your reasons for why you view transparency harmful to flickr. And I and others are entitled to an opinion that it would be nice to know where our work is being presented both internally and externally through flickr.
People are already being tracked. Providing a user with the number of views of their photostream is evidence of this. The question though is how much of this tracking information is flickr willing to share? How transparent are they willing to be? At present it is a very limited ammount. The numbers of visits to your stream -- which itself seems to be buggy with the proxy server thing etc. It is not an ethical lapse to endorse tracking by extending the information to include referring url data.
"And it is not necessarily any of yours or my business what flickr's reasons are for not implementing it."
I disagree. I believe that the users that make up flickr are part of a living breathing organism of all types. Artists, casual users, documentarians, citizen journalists, bloggers etc. etc. It is our content collectively that makes flickr what it is. It is in fact "our business." And it is unduly dismissive to assume that as Yahoo is the one that profits from our work that how the system works is ultimately none of our business.
Run away little child what you don't know won't hurt you is how I read a comment about something being "none of my business" when my content is actually a part of it. How flickr operates is actually part of all of our business.
Further, flickr has actually been pretty responsive in forums in the past and helpful in explaining their reasoning behind their decisions. This is a good thing. It makes people feel good about decisions and hence more willing to participate and include their content. Perhaps at some point in the future they will elaborate on this, perhaps not. But I'm well within my right to discuss it, especially when it is being brought up again and again as a request by users and no substantive answer has ever been given beyond a vague, broad and dismissive generic "privacy" issue that does not acknowledge the fact that referring url information is as anonymous as providing you the number of times your stream has been viewed.
"So rather than try and convince the concerned people, just don't offer it. It gives nothing to the site but paranoia and calculated view garnering"
In your words bah! I'm not interested in paranoia, just simple explanations. And "view garnering" is simple name calling. I talk here at Flickr Central for the conversation, not the views. I get thousands of views a day as it is. There are lots of better ways to garner views that debate in Flickr Central. Flickr Central is an excellent place for quality discourse and feedback though.
And I appreciate your new wordy as hell style. It give more insight into your thinking. I like that.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Actually Pat, that is not the case. I have never seen an email referrer that through the link only you were able to identify the viewer. Here is an example of a referrering link to thomashawk.com from earlier today via email:
us.f334.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=5268_172763_29...
As you will see when you click on the link you know nothing about this person whatsoever other than some anonymous random person found your site via an email. This invades no one's privacy.
Similar with RSS.
www.bloglines.com/myblogs_display?sub=17880940&site=3...
Another example of an RSS visit to thomashawk.com today. Again there is no information publicly avaialable via this information.
I have never seen a case where you could identify anyone through reffering links from email or RSS.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Each time someone is told who visits a photo is a time when the fact of the identity of the visitor is revealed. That revelation affects the visitor's privacy.
There are two sides to the transaction.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And as we are already told each (not who) time someone visits our photos anonymously and tracking is already being done, it seems to me no harm in also providing the referring url, an additional piece of anonymous information that would greatly help people identify where activity was taking place with regards to their photographs both at flickr and away from flickr on other websites. This really violates no one's privacy.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
Perhaps visitors might not like that information revealed. It may not mmake sense to you. It does not make much sense to me, but I accept that my view may not be the same as other people. Unless you can guarantee that every reasonable concern is addressed the feature should not be implemented.
Note: "Reasonable" is not necessarily synonomous with "how I think people should behave".
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thomas: I have never seen a case where you could identify anyone through reffering links from email or RSS.
Picking two examples does not prove it does not happen.
I have seen URLs from Outlook Web Access which included the exchange username because of a bug in IE 5 for Mac which sends the referrer URL even when the URL is https. This should not happen according the SLL spec. See www.gadgetopia.com/post/1810
Anywhere your store a string the user provided unknowingly it is a privacy issue. Are you telling me you are sure there are not web pages anywhere that put user information in HTTP GET arguments? What if the URL local to the user or inside an intranet? Here is a real world example from someone just using their Favorites in their web browser. I was able to read their full name:
file://localhost/Users/d**********l/Desktop/Favorites.html
You can try to brush these off and say its bad design in the web browsers or web sites, etc. I don't buy this argument. People should not have to analyze their web traffic to know what information may or may not be stored about them. The site storing the information is responsible for what it stores. The bottom line is that if you want to have a meaningful privacy policy you can't store strings from users without telling them since you don’t know if they contain personally identifying information or not.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
(Of course, I don't know why any Americans here are objecting. We all seem to roll over and play dead when our government announces that they're keeping tabs on who we call. Is knowing where your flickr hits come from really that much worse?)
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
iansand. you are absolutely correct in using the term "reasonable." It is the perfect word to use in this case.
Why are we allowed to be told how many times our photos are viewed? Because it enhances the experience and provides valuable feedback to the photographer.
And while the person viewing the photo is in fact being tracked. There is no reasonable expectation that *who* they are will be revealed. Simply the fact that some anonymous person visited your photo is all that you know. This provides the best of both worlds. The photographer is provided feeback on their photograph and the privacy of the viewer remains intact.
Is tracking occuring? Yes. But does the viewer still have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes.
Likewise with referring url information. If let's say, for instance, I know that one of the say 50 views reported on a photo of mine came from Explore, does this identify the viewer? No. Does the viewer still have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes. Similarly, lets say that my photo was blogged at Boing Boing. Again, does this identify the viewer? No. Does the viewer still have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes.
The only difference is that as a photographer I now have more insight into *where* my photography is being shown. Certainly there is no objection to the fact that I know traffic is driven to my image from Explore. Scout already makes this simple to see. What if it comes from someone's favorite stream. Well, when you mark a photo a favorite that is already public info. I can already see that today by drilling down and checking who made a photo a favorite. There is no privacy violation there.
Why not let a photographer know where their work is being viewed? It provides a richer and more engaging experience. As has been previously suggested some of this data is already avaiable through places like Technorati, but why make a flickr user go through the trouble of leaving flickr and getting a half assed version of this data when it is all right there at our fingertips?
Like you I am concerned with privacy. It is important. But a reasonable degree of privacy is what should be in order here. It is reasonable to know how many times your photo has been viewed anonymously. It is reasonable to know where your photo is being published anonymously.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Pat, interesting point but the extreme case nontheless. If flickr wanted to they could still yet safeguard against this. They could for instance provide you safely all activity internal to flickr and all external activity filtered by specific domains (not emails, RSS, etc.) This would catch 95% of the activity which would certainly answer most any persons question as to why they were seeing a lot of traffic on a particular image.
This is not a privacy issue though. I already get far, far, more detailed info simply from outbound links that are generated by flickr to my website than the information that you provided. I can, for instance, know a flickr user's ip address in certain cases when they visit my blog from Flickr. If it's flickr's responsibility to 100% guarantee privacy for every single user 100% of the time then I would not be able to see this info. If Flickr were really that anal about privacy then they would submit masked referrer information from outbound links from flickr.
By the way, for the rare case that this is an issue a user could always consider an anonymous proxy server. There are many of these are free at that. I'm using one right now. They kind of suck with regards to functionallity at flickr but allow access nonetheless.
Here for instance is an example of an inbound link to thomashawk.com that I was able to reference back to a user at flickr through my server logs.
www.flickr.com/photos/jcpiercy/147179686/
If privacy were really paramount flickr would mask the outgoing referrer info when this referral came into my server logs.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Note: "Reasonable" is not necessarily synonomous with "how I think people should behave".
You might have missed this the first time.
I do not understand the technobabble, but you need to convince people that there is no potential exposure. That involves addressing real world (rather than ideal world) concerns. At the moment there seem to be some reasonable concerns. Convince me that there are not.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
iansand. Not technobable. And those who have experience with server logs know. If I were to provide you with the last 4,000 referring urls to thomashawk.com not a single one of them would have identifying information.
This is not to say that through a rare obscure case of a reader or email app sending out bad info that this could not happen. But it is not the norm. Below are the last 20 just so you can get a sense of what this data looks like in the real world. None of these urls will provide you any personal information of those who have visited my site.
There is no reasonable potential for exposure. The "reasonable" concerns at the moment are those who would use the paranoia of privacy as an excuse for a legitimate tool that we should have access to.
Further, in the rare wacky case that someone was so paranoid you could always easily enable an option on flickr for any user to block their referral url info if desired. Similar to an individual being able to mark a photo private today.
There are a million ways that his could be done if it was so desired. The point is though that it provides additional transparency to you about your photographs which is deemed a bad thing.
Here are the last 20 referring urls to thomashawk.com. I challenge anyone here to find personally identiafiable information from these urls. You can't and you won't. The same thing would apply if I gave you the last list of 4000 instead of 20.
images.google.com/imgre...=100&tbnw=150&hl=en&...
thomashawk.com/2005/10/...ls-media-center-type-imac.html
images.google.ca/imgres...=en&start=7&prev=/image...
flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/147040363/
www.techcrunch.com/tag/Smugmug/
unknown
unknown
www.google.com/search?q...igital&hl=en&lr=&st...
images.google.com/imgre...start=103&prev=/images?q=b
www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/147040363/
www.google.com/search?s...,DGUS:en&q=sonicencoders.msi
www.google.com/search?h...rs industry&btnG=Google Search
digg.com/deals/PriceRit...ame_on_eBay_to_Barclay_s_Photo
images.google.co.in/img...tart=418&prev=/images?q=cl
unknown
unknown
www.pvrblog.com/pvr/2004/09/windows_media_c.html
images.google.com/imgre...683&w=1024&sz=72&tb...
skuki.net/index.php?showtopic=12283&st=0
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Some of them seem to go straight to blogs. That seems pretty personal AND identifiable. But perhaps I am not understanding.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why must EVERYTHING be a contest !?!?!?
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am not having a contest. I would be quite interested to know where views of my photos come from, but I am also interested in not being identified unless I want to be. I am not technical. I am curious. Thomas Hawk may be able to help me (but I wish he would take the time to make short posts. Long posts are lazy.)
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
iansand. Yes. many of these links are to blogs. This tells you that someone found my blog through another blog. This does not tell you *who* found my blog. This is the major distinction.
Certainly you can identify the blog but this is not the person viewing my site. It's some anonymous person who found it through that blog. Obviously the blogger does not care if I know that he/she blogged my info it's on a public website for the whole world to see.
Sorry about the long posts. I get carried away.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Here are the last 20 since the last post. None of this info in any way tells you who visited my site.
unknown
images.google.com/imgre...tle-was-another-girl-who-left-
lifehacker.com/software...lendar-in-the-works-152594.php
unknown
my.yahoo.com/
www.google.com/search?s...8,GGLD:en&q=mce and cable hdtv
unknown
www.google.com/search?h...r=&q=dual hdtv satellite tuner
images.google.ro/imgres...=109&tbnw=120&hl=ro&...
search.yahoo.com/search...b-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&a...
www.fark.com/tech/
images.google.es/imgres...=85&tbnw=139&hl=es&...
/flickr.com/people/thomashawk/
images.google.com/imgre..._Cu3RbWzZiVYM:&tbnh=88&...
images.google.co.in/img...zUehM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=15...
unknown
unknown
If you were to have visited my blog there would be no way for me to track who you were with simple referral information.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
Thomas: djwudi. Technorati, BlogPulse and Google Blog Search suck. I do use them of course, but they suck and are no comparison to having access to one's server logs. They are incomplete and lack serious functionality.
(shrugs) So sorry...I was doing my best to respond to Puja's question with something that was actually helpful. Guess I should have known better.
(ahem)
Sorry you think they "suck" -- I find them useful, and have stumbled upon more than a few people linking to my images thanks to one or more of the three services. Obviously, you don't agree. Even so, they're still a resource worth knowing about, even if someone eventually decides that they don't like them.
I never claimed that they were in _any_ way comparable to having server log access. That's your particular dead horse to flog, not mine.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
djwudi edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
djwudi, sorry to come across harsh. Good suggestions in fact. Again I use them all. Technorati actually does a pretty good job at tracking where my blog is linked. I like the service a lot. They don't do such a good job at tracking flickr for some reason though. But you are right. This is better than nothing.
Still when an easy answer is so close within grasp it's just frustrating to have to rely on a far inferior outside app to try and get the same info.
They are indeed good tools worth knowing about. They are also particularly helpful tools to use in tracking news about flickr. I've got lots of flickr based technorati RSS subscriptions, Google news, etc.
They only suck in a relative sense in terms of using them as a tool to find out where your image traffic is coming from vs. server log referral info.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
OK. Can someone tell me why Thomas Hawk is wrong, without technobabble, please.
Does the protection depend on people using proper coding? If that is the answer it is a forlorn hope.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i want to have 12.000 hits tooooo
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"If privacy were really paramount flickr would mask the outgoing referrer info when this referral came into my server logs."
I'm not sure I understand this. Flickr can't do anything to mask referrers to your server.
Referrers are collected and sent by the client. If there is a link to your blog on the HTML returned by Flickr then when a user clicks on it, the browser will include the page it found the link on as as the referrer.
And surely, by your own arguments, all you get is that someone went to that photo and clicked on that link, not necessarily the picture owner?
Or am I missing something here?
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
RowW, if flickr wanted to they could uses anonymous proxy technology to block/route the information (including much more identifiable things about you like your ip address) for external links leaving flickr. The point is they don't. Because it's no big deal. Plus it's not really flickr's role to do this. And because it's generally understood that anytime we visit any site your information can be logged.
My point is that this outgoing referrer information is no more harmful than the incoming referral information. And especially if stripped to only provide you the bare minimum of an incoming url (which would provide you 99% of the information that you'd need to answer the questions asked again and again about why so many hits, where's my traffic coming from, why the views, etc).
Everyone rings the privacy alarm and call to arms when there really is no privacy issue here at all. Generally speaking, there is no identifiable information associated with you from your incoming or outgoing referring urls. It's no different than flickr telling you how many views you have on a photo which provides you information about your visitors in an anonymous fashion.
And certainly allowing individual users an optional choice to block their referring url info, to go with their tinfoil hat if so inclined, could also easily be achieved which would still provide 98% of the info necessary for all flickr users to know where their photos were being shared inside and outside of flickr.
Look at my examples above from my server logs. What does it tell me? Nothing about *who* visited my site. It tells me they came from fark and flickr and google and techcrunch and pvrblog, etc. all useful information if they were my photographs being shown there. But it tells me nothing about *who* came from fark or pvrblog or google etc.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
dennis servers, send something interesting to boing boing and you'll get them.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Thomas, just wanted to clarify a point! :o)
For the record, I don't consider referrers to be even slightly a privacy issue. As you say, who cares what page I found the link on? How many bomb-manufacture / animal porn sites are going to link to my pictures anyway?
Whether it's an actual privacy problem or not is I think besides the point. It's about fear. My mum, for example, while happy to read out credit card details to a stranger over the phone, will not buy anything on line.
Flickr is not going to implement an inessential feature that many people are worried about and then say "it's not a problem, just get educated, hicks".
Anyway, as I personally would gain exactly zero from having referrers logged I don't really care whether they choose to implement them or not. :o)
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
-RobW- edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
"How many bomb-manufacture / animal porn sites are going to link to my pictures anyway?"
Ah, good point RobW. But if one did would you want to know about it? What if you posted a photo of your daughter and someone blogged it at site dedicated to little girls and it seemed pervy to you. Would you want to know this and possibly reconsider and mark the photo private? Or would you rather be in the dark about it? There is no good reason why we should not be allowed access to this information about where our work is showing up.
What if someone blogged your photo and then wrote a blog post saying that they thought your photograph was unethical for some reason. Would you want to know about this and possibly be able to clarify your thoughts regarding an image at the place where it is being discussed?
Why not let us see where our work is being shown outside of flickr (and even inside of flickr) when it is such an easy and simple thing to do and violates no one's privacy?
I'm for transparency. I'm for empowering the user on the user side of the hated user generated content label.
Yes, maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but trust me. In two weeks some other new person is going to ask the exact same question in Flickr Central yet again. And people will keep asking because we are naturally curious about the activity surrounding our images.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't want to sound cynical (yes I do), but I'm sure, if you didn't have 12,000 hits before, you're on your way by posting to a bunch of groups and saying "this picture got 13,000 hits......" ;)
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
btezra [deleted] says:
~ping me!~
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
wilkiecoco...
the number of hits keeps fluctuating.
there is no reason to sound cynical. i dont thrive on the number of hits a photo of mine gets. if i did, i would give it tags like "naked"or "porn".
i am going to go ahead and believe its the proxy server thing. i did not mean to cause a huge argument (read above) about this.
thanks though.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
IF someone was a number cruncher, now would probably NOT be the best time to upload ...
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
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
