|
I'm thinking of committing flickercide.
If you do, please report back on how it affects your 'interestingness' rating. I have a theory, but I'm waiting for the data.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
MD..>> [deleted] says:
Good point Tim.
Teo, you crack me up. I'd love to hear your theory too :P
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had the same happen to my pictue:
What is going on?
Could it interestingness rivals?
Luckily I don't attach much import to interestingness, and feel sorry for those desperate for attention.
But agree that it brings flickr into disrepute.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
algo edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
I'd like to hear the theory, teotwawki, otherwise I can't collect the relevant data!!!
=^P
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Algo I loved your pic and favorited it. But I'm sad that it only takes only TWO nasty folks to remove it from view completely from public areas when it takes FIFTY people favoriting to make it highly visible.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
lol teotwawki...
creativity ~ yes, it does suck, and it wasn't fair...I would suggest getting some feedback over to the flickr people to see if anything can be done. But please...interestingness is not worth flickrcide. Or if you think it is, maybe it is.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What??? this is ridiculous. How can I find out if someone has flagged one of my photos without going through my whole stream?
Makes an interesting study on the mindset of some people. THere is nothing I can see in those photos here that I can find offensive at all.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
OK, OK, I exaggerated about the flickercide part. I'm just angry that the system is so easy to manipulate. I'll edit that part out so we can focus on the real issue.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah, Helga (hkvam), I the previous day I had one in the top ten that "disappeared, also.
We should never know (although Flickr knows) WHO the person is. But is sure as heck would be nice to be NOTIFIED when a pic has gotten "two strikes", and is thus gone from public view.
Then we could appeal through the "help process"
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Unfortunately, you're getting sucked into a craving need for VISIBILITY AND EXPOSURE. The more you get of it, the more you crave it, and the more you become addicted to it. Get over it now before it's too late! Any system that can be manipulated is broken. This is getting as bad as other sites membership ratings systems.
Heck, I say we mark all of our own pics as "may offend" just to boycott "interestingness" and really expose it for the sham that it is !!
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hmmm, but the 'May Offend' thing is just as much a sham... so how do we protest that?
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Yogi edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
by using it to expose the greater sham??
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Good point, I checked the interestingness once and I really don't care about it.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
normy [deleted] says:
I got bored of the interestingeness thing within a couple of weeks. I hardly even look at it these days, sham or no sham.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Now I'm craving a sham and cheese sandwich...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hmm, how about we use 'May Offend' to go through the entire photostreams of the people that are in the top50 interestingness (whatever!) list. This will expose both as a sham, no?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Perhaps we should all suggest that the powers that be offer a Reconsider option that would then prompt some human to actually look at the "offending" image.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I hate interestingness.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Personally, I have found a great number of admirable and high quality pics by browsing the "EXPLORE" feature. Photos that I otherwise would never have been aware of.
People will try to exploit any system devised. We humans are just like that.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
btw, tho it be un-PC of me to say this, I found it amusingly sad to see many interestingness-junkies shamelessly attaching katrina titles and tags to pics unrelated to the disaster just to get traffic flowing their way. and others would copy pics off the net and put them on their stream (oh yeah, with the proper attributions...) just to get their screen-names into the interestingness "action". my point? their "activity" bumped many others great photos off those pages. so the message is "just about anything goes if the greater traffic will bear it."
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
gaspi *yg edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
Emiko If you don't like interesingness, start your own thread.
This thread is about abusing the system.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
I think the main issue here is not Interestingness but having photos in your stream removed from public view.
I, for one, would not want to have as much as one photo in my stream marked as offensive since I do take care to select what I upload.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I quite agree with you Gary aka *syzygynick. There has been a lot of abuse with tags to increase traffic, particularly during the hurricane.
And something MUST be done about people posting pics that are not their own, usually without copyright permission or attribution.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Exactlty Helga (hkvam), that is in fact the point.
other users should NOT be able to make a person's photo "vanish" for no good reason
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@algo, your hands photo hasn't been removed. I found it with a public tag search. Maybe other photos just became "more interesting"... it does happen.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
squeak_ [deleted] says:
(although Flickr knows)
"At the present time, no, we don't track who clicks "this may be offensive"
There have been a few threads over in flickr help about this (and another thread in central IIRC) This poses a another problem since the photo gets removed from public tag searches, which sucks.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Muffet said:
Perhaps we should all suggest that the powers that be offer a Reconsider option that would then prompt some human to actually look at the "offending" image
That only solves abuse of the button, and doesn't address the real issues that surround it. The 'May Offend' button shouldn't remove images from tag searches. It should be switched to a "Offends Me" button that blocks the offending user from the offendees views *only*.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If people think your cute picture "may offend" then they really shouldn't surf the Internet in the first place. Or watch TV. Or read newspapers. Or walk out the door. :-)
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
face it, Explore/Interestingness is designed to benefit THE SITE and bring IT more traffic, and not designed to benefit our own personal interests.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
gaspi *yg edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
Pretty rinky tink system that has a "may offend" button on it that other people can use to one's disadvantage. Thanks for mentioning it to me. I never knew what that mysterious phrase implied, and often considered using it on my own photos to attract attention.
The flickr enterprise appears headed toward the inevitable leveling that is attendant to any public art form that spends two seconds worrying about what someone else will think; and the existence of the button is a mistake that should be corrected. From the signals I'm getting, however, I won't hold my breath while I wait for a serious-minded, adult decision from the overlords.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
How can I find out if any of my pictures have been marked as "may offend"? Do I have to look at each one?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Damn, (I hope no one is "offended") Yogi BINGO!!
If the "may offend" button just act as a personal censor that would be perfect. Otherwise TWO people can censor a pic for 500,000 flickrites (and the rest of the WWW universe). Too much power.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
Anders, if you have an unusual tag and you can find the pic within your photos, but not by using the general TAG search, it has been flagged.
If you have a real popular one, click on the "interestingness" tab after the search, and it will show or not show, depending on the "may offend" flag.
If you add a new tag to test this though, please allow 15 minutes for the system to catch up.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You think it's bad now, just wait till people can make money selling their photos! I'm sure the Flickr folk are working on a cure but I have no direct knowledge of that.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@syzygynick--Creativity+ did not tag his prairie dog shot with any tags deliberately to attract attention or to "make it" on Interestingness. A lot of people who are his contacts or others who found it there found it extremely interesting and cute.
For you to disparage Interestingness by accusing ALL FLICKRITES of gaming the system is unkind and unwarranted. Perhaps some do, but I would think the great majority do not.
Another photographer's work, politically oriented, has been trolled by people who do not care to listen to views they don't agree with, so his work virtually disappears from Interestingness, even if it makes it to #1. It's there one minute and gone the next.
There is something obviously wrong with the "may offend" tag when people use it as a censorship tool for whatever reasons they see fit, whether the image is offensive or not. Certainly Creativity+'s shot here cannot be termed offensive on the basis of its being pornographic, which is what I think the Flickr administration had in mind when they created the tag.
Perhaps Flickr administration should rethink the tag itself if it has become a means by which people can remove others' shots "just because" or because they do not agree with the comments.
I don't want to get into a political discussion here, except to say that that false accusations and smearing someone whose opinions differ from theirs is a tactic used by the current U.S. administration to squelch dissent. Let us hope that Flickr does not succumb to such censorship and narrow-mindedness.
This is not a question of the value of the Interestingness idea, but the much larger issue of censorship, and Flickr administration needs to address it.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lunaryuna AGAINST CENSORSHIP [deleted] says:
I read about the same problem from a complaint by AnomalousNYC, who had the same thing happening to two of his images, which were of politically strong POV and apparently some Bush supporters flagged it as may offend and they were gone from Interestingness. It shows a serious flaw in this feature and I understand that those who want to use it, feel totally let down and enraged by the abuse.
On a personal note: I got totally bored by Interestingness and its apparently "narrowminded" algorithm, which seems to take into account only a small band of attributes of an image and its "performance" in flickr. I learned from other visitors of my images that I had had quite a few of them in that feature, but having seen totally kitschy and serially repeated ideas overloading that feature, I had no interest at all at checking it out any further. Rather makes me feel ashamed to have my images thrown together with those kitsch-glamour shots and one-idea-100-images series and their nth copycat revivals ...
Free your mind ;)
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
lunaryuna AGAINST CENSORSHIP edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
I freed my mind years ago. It never came back.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Good grief. All these threads about who is seeing your picture, who shouldn't see that picture, etc etc etc.
I think some people take all of this too seriously. It is supposed to be fun, isn't it? What is so fun about coming to a community where all people do is complain?
There are so many more important things in life to be concerned with, and I come here to see someone whining because their picture is not being seen by enough people? WAAAAAAAAA. Cry me a river lol.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A while back I read a thread in a group that actually promoted the idea of taking advantage of the whole "interestingness" system by doing exactly what you have written about. I remember reading it and thinking just how sad and nasty it was to take advantage of an obvious flaw in the system in an attempt to further their own status.
Since that day I have not and will not visit the "interestingness" pages as it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you mimbrava.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So people can tag my pictures with a negative mark that removes the picture from search results, I can't myself see it has been marked and no-one can see who did it? That function needs to be removed ASAP.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
rockymountainhigh said:
There are so many more important things in life to be concerned with, and I come here to see someone whining because their picture is not being seen by enough people?
I think you miss what the real issue is, at least with respect to the "May Offend" thing. It's not about who seeing my stuff, it's about other people's stuff that I'm not seeing. Do you see?
With respect to the interestingness thing, you're absolutely right, I think.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Perfectly right, Anders. The positive intention of the "may offend" came out of a concerted effort to be fair to intercultural moral values.
But it's broken.
In fact, one person with more than one account could go through and sabotage an entire top 50 interestingmess set.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
yes, but flickr powers-that-be have already stated that if you mark too many pics as may offend, they put your account under review. this means that you would probably have to have at least 30-40 accounts to do that...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
rockymountainhigh, I just wondered. Do you post your pics for others to see? Other than a Backup Archive, I can't imagine any other reason.
Pictures exist to be seen.
I'm only complaining that someone can sabotage that, under the current system. No booo hoooos; just trying to voice my complaint and get something done about it.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, I do put them up for people to see, but those people are friends and family:)
I don't care if anyone I don't know sees them or not.
Aren't complaints handled through emails?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Unfortunately, you're getting sucked into a craving need for VISIBILITY AND EXPOSURE. The more you get of it, the more you crave it, and the more you become addicted to it. Get over it now before it's too late! Any system that can be manipulated is broken. This is getting as bad as other sites membership ratings systems.
Heck, I say we mark all of our own pics as "may offend" just to boycott "interestingness" and really expose it for the sham that it is !!"
I missed that in my reading of this thread but want to add a HERE HERE! Great post *syzygynick.
I understand the complaint and would assume at some point it is looked into. In the meantime, I hope no one lets this "get to them". It is really not that important.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My photo that has generated such controversy over such a mild statement has suddenly disappeared off the #1 Interestingness as of an hour ago. It had been in that spot continuously for 15 hours. Now the most "interesting" thing about this is that it had a lively comment stream going, with most people appreciative and just a few very unhappy about it. One commenter warned that the image was likely to be removed from "Interestingness". And then another notoriously "negative" member also started commenting late late last night.
Now, poof, after over 1,800 views. Hmmmm, curiouser and curiouser. BTW, I am not concerned that it was my image that was most recently removed suddenly, but the fact is that there is something very odd and sad that this could be the result of political malcontents marking it as "may offend". That would be just as seriously WRONG as what was done with algo and creativity+, who really had fine, fine art photos on the site.
I really hope that a flickr staff member will see this thread and respond. "Enquiring Minds Want to Know"...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@lunaryuna:
I was browsing through the Interestingness pages today looking at the last couple of days' pages. It seems that some that make it have only a couple of views, no comments, no faves and no posting to any groups. How odd. Then I noticed one page that had 7 of the 10 slots from the same member, all variations of some sand sculptures. Again, only two or three views on the photos. I think Interestingness is slightly broken or someone is manually "gaming" the system. It was an odd experience. The other weird thing was seeing spread throughout today's Interestingness was photos of nude women on a beach. There were at least 5 from this one member. Again the view count was in the mid twenties and none were posted to any groups, and there were no tags! Anyone else notice this?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What you describe is how the pages look shortly after midnight. Interestingness seems to be calculated on a daily basis - at the beginning of each day it doesnt have many "stats" to go on and things seem completely random, as well as dynamic.
As an experiment, a friend of mine here and I got a random photo of his to the top of the 'interestingness' page very easily at this volatile time - though it was soon knocked off.
There are a few other reasons you may have seen what you saw but they're just details of the algorithm which a few people have independently discovered: some in order to "game" the system but others just of out old-fashioned curiosity :)
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cobalt123: Your photo no longer appears under public images tagged with 'protest sign'
looks to have been marked as offensive indeed.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Kallese (a group admin) edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
Kallese - I'm glad you pointed this out. I wonder what the heck is going on? Here are the full list of tags I have on the image. I wonder if more will start disappearing this way!
(Tags: Bush+embarass+embarassed+protest +9-11+memorial+sign+protest sign+Phoenix+Arizona+Katrina+Katrina Relief+disaster+top-v111+top-v333+
interestingness+top-v555+interestingness1+
top-v777+top-v1111+top-f25)
FYI: good thing I can't speel sometims, it helps when I us the tage seerch...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
can the owner of a photograph see whether their photo was marked as offensive?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cobalt123: Once a pic is flagged as "may offend" It is only visible within groups, not in public searches or places. None of your tags will work to find it. The photo no longer exists except to people who have already "faved" it, and within groups.
I didn't like it, either.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No, seawllrunner. The only way to tell is if you can no longer find it via public searches.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
creativity+: omigod! Then, if I wanted to put my image into a comment, it could only show up in the group discussions of a pool I originally submitted it to? If that is the case, then this experiment will show up to all:
 -- from cobalt123 - (?)
If there is "nothing" then the problem is even more serious...
Does this mean I cannot submit the image to other groups now? And those who commented on the image but did not "fav" it, they won't see it either?
Anyone who previously saw this in my stream but didn't fav it, let us know if it shows up for you....
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I truly hate seeing the way that Flickr users have begun to behave in regard to Interestingness. Some users are desperate to show up high on Interestingness, and now others seem hell-bent on clicking "May Offend" willy-nilly. In the immortal words of Jerri Blank: Now I'm sad.
I do want to throw out some words of caution, though. First, no matter how many times Creativity+ may say otherwise, we just do not know how many "May Offend" clicks it takes to cause a picture to be NIPSA-ed. This FlickrHelp discussion should be required reading.
Second, Interestingness is incredibly volatile, so just not showing up there is not enough -- as has been pinted out, you need to do a public search (using tags) to see if a photo has been flagged with enough "May Offend" clicks to be dropped from the public areas of Flickr.
The original intent of "May Offend" was always to keep the public stream of Flickr free of commercial content, adult content and web effluvia (screencaps, photoshop remixes of photos not taken by the Flickr user, and the like). I hate that it has seemingly become a weapon. I guess the temptation of Interestingness, and the petty jealousy that is concomitant, is just too great.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Cobalt123, I think you are misunderstanding Creativity+, or else he is slightly misinformed. Your picture still exists, you can still add it to groups, I can still see it when I visit your photostream, you can still add it in comments, you can still blog it, you can still email it. It has not been deleted, or been made private. It has not disappeared from the favorites of people who faved it.
If a photo has been NIPSA-ed, then it is not findable in tag searches, and it is not listed in Explore/Interestingness. That is the only consequence that I'm aware of.
(Edited to correct the reference to Creativity+'s gender. Sorry!)
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Mermaniac edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
I've been silently following this thread for over 4 hours now... I'm wondering when a member of Flickr staff will comment.
I personally dont understand Interestingness at all, my most favorited and commented photo is apparently my 33rd most interesting... explain that if you can!?
As for the "may offend" link, something should be done about it. There should definately be some human interaction... I cant imagine it would take that long to spot a non-pornographic image from a page full of porn and non-photographic images. Those are (as I understand it) the only 2 types of images which should be flagged. The only images I have ever flagged have been images that I have uploaded, which I deemed to be too heavily manipulated to no longer be considered "photographs".
I think there is a more serious issue here though. I'm sure I read somewhere that if someone had several photos (i cant remember the exact number) flagged, then all of their pictures get removed from public searches. If people are maliciously flagging non-offensive photos, how long will it be before the likes of Creativity+ get banned from public searches without just cause?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If NIPSA'd, it is also not visible in a group to a non-member of the group. Just for an example, Cobalt123's photo is in the Arizona Wonders group, but I can't see it in the group pool because I am not a member. I can see 1267 photos in the pool... after joining the group, I could see 1275 photos... so that means that there are 8 photos in the pool that non-members can't see.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
[Edited to remove something stupid that I decided wasn't worth pointing out after all.]
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Mermaniac edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
@creativity+: sorry sorry, jeez
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Emiko Hime edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
I think that people in this discussion will find this sample just uploaded now to be very very interesting:
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I second the motion mentioned in the comments in cobalt123's last image, that "they change the 'May offend' button to 'offends me' - That way the picture will be blocked just for the ONE user. It's not fair for a couple of people to censor a photo for EVERYONE."
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Honk If You Love Interestingness
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't care one bit about interestingness, but that people are maliciously using the "may offend" button to remove pictures from public site areas because they don't agree with the photo owner's politics is pathetic.
I've said it before, when the discussion was mainly about erotica/porn, but in this case it applies even more: I want to be able to chose whether "offensive" images are visible to me in tag searches, pools, interestingness etc. or not. that would quickly make all this "may offend" clicking pointless.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
beep beep Nash
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What I care about it that there is censorship on this site. There are ways that people can make their own images be private. That's great there is that feature. But to impose privacy is to cause censorship over something that is protected in America with the 1st amendment. When flickr was purchased by yahoo! and the corporate office moved to America, I should think that censorship laws would be applicable as US law. Clearly, there is some reason that these "disappearances" happen. However they happen, there must be a remedy to take care of such malicious work. Otherwise one would tend to think of fear as governing what people can communicate in a public forum.
I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", but it really is offensive that another image in memory of 9-11 in America has been replaced in lieu and it is now sanctioned in a way. Even if completely done by algorithm/computer, it really seems pretty low for this to have occurred for the 9-11 date in the calendar.
But to be fair to flickr staff, perhaps there is no one there who is aware of these issues and the increase in the disappearances. As members, we can at least speak up and bring it to attention. I did not write to flickr help yet because I knew of a similar member's problem and the "official" response on that situation, which was not encouraging...
It would be only right to restore the Honk image to public view, and also the photo from creativity+, the one from algo, the one from AnomolousNYC and any others so deleted from public view.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have already written to Flickr staff about the malicious use of the 'may offend' button, so they are not unaware of the situation.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My, oh my. Censorship running rampant in this day and age?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
y'know..what's fun...like in the good old days before the increasingly controversial Explore page. Just check out peoples favourites, and the favourites of those peoples favourites that you like, and etc ad infinitum. Hours of time wasting fun guaranteed. Start anywhere. Pick a random person in this list, open their faves page, and go forth and actually EXPLORE.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
JourneyVerse edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
Someone else made this point on another of these 'cry censorship' threads - do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous these censorship claims are? Everyone can still see cobalt123's photo - and all the other ones - they are freely accessible to all. It's beneath contempt to cry censorship to drum up extra views for obviously totally uncensored images.
And Nyx... hear, hear.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i always thought this thing of "interest-thing" was a bad idea...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Personally, I have never been interesting, and I have no intention of starting now...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
you said it brock. we didn't ;)
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ teotwawki
You're right, you shouldn't care much abuot interestingness (it makes flickr more and more competitive), but this doesn't change the fact, that actions like these are censorship...
The photos who seem to be harmless stay in the interestingness, other more controversial ones don't - so the public only sees the first ones - and that is wrong in my opinion!
Cobalt is restricted in his freedom and that isn't something you should be indifferent towards.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
Raphs edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
Yogi wrote: I freed my mind years ago. It never came back.
Yogi, obviously it was never yours to begin with.
I know it's way late in the thread for that, but I couldn't resist.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i third what nyx brings up about the good ol' days. i think this process of wading through favorites really should have been played up as the major exploration process on flickr instead of interestingness. it's perfect for just bumping into other people, stumbling on photos you like, and building a community.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If we were notified of when a photo had been marked by someone as "May Offend" we'd be able to go on, withdraw it from the public, then contact support if we felt we were getting a bum deal...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Interestingness was interesting once - in a world wide web far far away. It kicked up decent photographs. It was a good way to find some good people's work.
Have a look now though and, for me personally, the quality near the top has declined - almost as though the better images have been kicked further down the list. It seems obvious the system is being manipulated. Instead of it being a tool for exposure of work that many people have favorited, commented, etc, it seems to be becoming, essentially, just another over populated group.
As for "may offend" these complaints are becoming quite a problem. Thread are popping up all over the place. Censoring politics is nothing new in this day and age - and that makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. Tagging "may ofend" to kick people off Interestingness is desperate and selfish, and harming what I'm sure started out with the best of intentions.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And as Simon just pointed out, we should be notified if some small minded prig with rotting brain cells flags up images as offensive.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This abuse of the 'may offend' button only became obvious because the image disapppeared from the interestingness view. That was usefuil, but I can't think of anything else it is good for.
As to the real issue it is appalling that a couple of clicks is all it takes to remove an image from public view. The button should be changed to 'offends me'. I don't want some narrow minded prig choosing what I see and read. It is doubly offensive when it gets used for political censorship.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Is it not a tenet of jurisprudence and due process that the accused has a right to know who the accuser is?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Before one of you spontaneously self-combusts, allow me to point out (again) that no censorship has taken place here. Let's try not to lose the sense of perspective.
I don't want some narrow minded prig choosing what I see and read.
Quite right too - who would want that? Fortunately, nothing of the sort has happened here. No-one has prevented anyone from accessing images. 'May offend' does not delete the image or make it impossible for others to see it.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
teotwawki edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
My image is also removed from all tag searches. It is not only that it was removed from the archives of "Interestingness".
I find it peculiar, if nothing else, that another image in memorial to 9-11 was allowed to stand and also to mark the date on the calendar for 9-11. Interestingness has now made a very very interesting statement by this action. Is no one interested that the very photo promoted by that member is not even their own photo, nor credited with the photographer?
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Teotwawki You simply don't know what you are talking about - sorry. Read some more and try this:
1) click on my image of the prairie dogs, and notice the tag "tussle", an unusual tag.
2) Click on the "Tags" button at the top left of every flicrk screen. Type in the tag "tussle". My photo which WAS in there is no longer visible.
When more than ONE person (I don't know how many it takes) mark a photo as "may offend" it no longer can be seen from the public areas of flickr.
This also means that if I go to view pics in a "group pool", and am not a member of the group, I won't see the pic either.
As a member of the group, I can see it, because then it is not considered a "public area".
I've studied this carefuly before starting this discussion.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
More discussion within flickr is carrying on in a number of group discussions and on individua photo streams. Thankfully the berserkers have not yet found a way to remove such discussion.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@cobalt and others who are ranting about "censorship": listen to teotwawki and Nyx.
Take a break. Try to remember what Flickr is all about. It's not about you - it's about your contacts. Go look at their photos, make some nice comments, make some new friends, become motivated to improve your photographs.
Never look at "Interestingness" again. It's not good for you.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@creativity+: I don't find your critter photo offensive but I can understand why others would. Looks like gang rape to me...;)
Edited to add the little smiley thing.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
tabhastal edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
The "may offend" button definitely needs to be redefined. I like the idea of the "offends me" button. The only time I've flagged a pic was when one of my contacts put up a picture of his penis. I hit the "may offend" button, and also removed him as a contact. But, had I known what that button actually does, I think I would simply have removed him as a contact.
I think it is clear that the "may offend" button is now being used/abused as a political tool, and that is just plain wrong. I really hope the Flickr staff will rethink this and fix the problem, soon.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just realized how we can help the people who are all tied up in interesting/not interesting/may offend etc.
Flickr should only roll out new features to new members or members who opt in to new features.
That way people who hate change can keep their own little version of Flickr 1.0 and live happily ever after in their cocoons.
- - - - - - - -
How is that squirrel photo censored? We are all seeing it on 'Central. Anyone who clicks on it can see it.
What concerns me the most is the number of people saying that the "may offend" button was used maliciously. How do you know it has been? By whom? On what photo? Under what circumstances?
It seems to me that we should know more facts before jumping on the bandwagon and believing blindly. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm just saying that we should know all the facts before coming to a conclusion.
And finally, the Flickr staff is small and rolling out new features can take a long time. For all you know they are working on it -- but there might be more important things ahead of it in the queue or there might be some complication that makes it harder to implement.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@emdot: Good points. And, they are working on it. Sure would be nice if everyone gave them some time to brainstorm...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@tabhastal: Your comment immediately brings to mind what the famous parable of 1930's Germany tells - as long as it is happening to someone else, it is fine, until it happens to you.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
PeasPlease edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
Please, PeasPlease, you're not going to call me a Nazi are you?
If so, I'll have to ask for pie. ;)
Edited to add the little smiley thing again. Gotta get me a "smiley" key.
Originally posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
tabhastal edited this topic 82 months ago.
|
|
|
@PeasPlease: Disregarding the time and place in your comment, you are right. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to bring some perspective to the hyperbolic, emotional tone of this discussion.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thank you for acknowledging that there are times and places that are indeed appropriate for public discussion, even if there are opposing views and emotions running hot.
BTW, a member pointed out to me that my current photo in my photo stream was on page 3 of "Interestingness" only an hour ago. Now it has disappeared entirely from that feature. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wonder if Interestingness made a cry of delight when it jumped the shark? It certainly was eager to do so; it didn't take long.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Cobalt123, your current image in your photostream is a screen capture, not a photo. There are many reasons to click on "May Offend", and not all of them have to do with the content of the image. Some of them have to do with the presence of nonphotos in heavily-promoted areas of a photo-sharing website.
See, for instance, this comment, this comment and this comment to the relevant discussion ("Censoring Interestingness") FlickrHelp forum.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm still trying to get the "jumped the shark" thing. I even smoked a bowl and still can't get it...
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Heh jumping the shark:
Q. What is jumping the shark?
A. It's a moment. A defining moment when you know that your favorite television program has reached its peak. That instant that you know from now on...it's all downhill. Some call it the climax. We call it "Jumping the Shark." From that moment on, the program will simply never be the same. Jumping the shark applies not only to TV, but also music, film, even everyday life. "Did you see her boyfriend? She definitely jumped the shark." You get the idea.
www.jumptheshark.com/about.htm
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads