|
I use Firefox with Ad Block installed and just Ad Block them as they tun up so gradually I see less and less of them. I also make it clear that I would never dream of joining a Group that encourages their members to use these gifs in peoples photo comments and have stated when people start discussing them being used in a Group that I'm a member of that if they did I would leave the group and delete all my photos from it.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I like them a lot
it' playful and adds color to the comments
I make my own, like this one
still experimenting to make this one better:
But these are too big to use often, so now I make em smaller, e.g.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks for warning us. Blocked :-)
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
jshook [deleted] says:
@mo gun: I might bring to your attention that by making a comment on a photograph, the point is to draw attention to qualities in the photograph itself, not to distract from the photo with cheesy and idiotic animations.
If this sort of thing is the wave of the future I'll ask the greasemonkey folks to write a script that tracks down and destroys any comment with any sort of graphic whatsoever.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
jshook [deleted] says:
Good idea, Mr. Last Minute!
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I also vote for disable <img>-tags in comments on a per user setting either for the own photostream to forbid others to include inline images and for myself to dynamically remove inline images on photos I view. But most important would be the option to prevent them put on my own photostream, to keep it nice and tidy. Now I use a Opera Userscript to modify the css-style for images to 1x1px size so I virtually dont see them anymore.
Another option would be to scale them down via css to lets say 5x5 or 7x7 px and expand then on mousover event. This would also be acceptable for me if a complete turn off option is not wanted by flickr.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... has left the building [deleted] says:
Animated gifs? I *love* them! ;-)
NOT!!!
I don't know what to do anymore. I adblock every singe one of them, I clearly state in my profile that I don't wish to receive trophies and whatnot. I offended several people by telling them directly that I don't like them (the gimmicks, NOT the people!) - and still I keep receiving these idiotic thingies.
Short of blocking people who mean well, what else can I do?
Right after giving us the ignore feature for comments we've made, PLEASE, oh powers that be: Follow Andreas' advice and let us optionally disable img-tags!
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There are some cases where inserting images are useful, such as in the comments for this photo. However, in this case they were relevant to the topic at hand and not useless animated garbage as above.
Perhaps an option allowing images from flickr.com and not off site servers done by those who comment (except for the user who's photo it is) would eliminate the gif spam.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... has left the building [deleted] says:
Triborough wrote: There are some cases where inserting images are useful, such as in the comments for this photo. However, in this case they were relevant to the topic at hand and not useless animated garbage as above.
Perhaps an option allowing images from flickr.com and not off site servers done by those who comment (except for the user who's photo it is) would eliminate the gif spam.
I agree with the usefulness in some cases. However, I would love to trade this for the peace of mind that comes from knowing that nobody can annoy me with gifs anymore.
And don't forget that at least 99.9% of the group identifiers are pictures from flickr.com ;-)
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
yah, how much less useful really would it be to just have an html link to those other car images? I don't get much peace of mind from a greasemonkey script either, because it isn't so much that they bother me, it's that I'm bothered that these are on my page for others to be bothered by. It's very bothersome.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes I also would prefer to block the images completely (as an option for choosing of course and not for all) and trade the usefullness for a tidy layout too. As theres always the way to put a LINK to the photo you want to show and to contribute to the discussion/comment.
So everyone viewing the comments can feel free to decide to see it or not. And most important it will not clutter the comments youve made pages and the recent activities pages.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
bah... some people (like myself ?) do not get animated gifs as comments. not that i would like to, but i wouldn't be sore if i had fans.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Previous discussion about this topic.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If people want feedback for their posts. Fine. 90% of the comments are effusive drivel, but even THAT is better than HTML trophies & animated junk.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm adding my voice to this plea.
I'd like to see img disabled in all comments. Though I'm not keen on people posting images at all in my comments, it's the animated gifs that get me most, those awful smilies and so on.
On my stream they're a pain though thankfully I don't get many.
When they show up in "comments you made" with some people getting 15 20 comments in a row with the same dancing baloney, it makes me want to delete my comment so I don't have to see them again.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree! The animated crap has to go!
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... has left the building [deleted] says:
When they show up in "comments you made" with some people getting 15 20 comments in a row with the same dancing baloney, it makes me want to delete my comment so I don't have to see them again.
Unfortunately, sometimes I am doing just that, ronet.
First I tried to make new comments (add just an * or such), so I won't have to read all this baloney, but they keep coming - and so now I just search for my previous comment (sometimes from as far as 2 years ago!) and delete it.
Which again leads to my other pet peeve: The ignore feature.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... has left the building [deleted] says:
[edit: double post]
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
here's why we need more than adblock for hiding gifs.
I just had the supreme misfortune of hitting a photo that had five different trophy graphics FROM THE SAME GROUP:
"LOVE Trophy"
"Beauty Trophy"
"Joy Trophy"
"3 Award Trophy"
"Portal Prize"
that's right, if you don't want to see this group's silly award gifs popping up again and again, you have to use adblock five separate times. one lousy group.
out of control.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love the spoons.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
bump
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I still love the spoons.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks nelma-f !
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're welcome, Mo. :D
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I like images, also in comments. But animated gifs draw me nuts because they are screaming for attention.
So I would love to have the option to opt out of receiving animated gifs in my comments (if they are displayed as static images instead that would be fine)
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
are there any staff replies to the subject of animated gifs?
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
_mpd_ [deleted] says:
I've said this about a million times so I'm just weighing in to be counted.
Yes, GIFs must go :) Actually I'd like a "don't post any photos" in there at all thing, as that stupid puppy dog "I've sniffed out" junk is pretty much as bad. It's kind of like people putting stickers on your photostream -- and I'm not in 1st grade.
Adblock only hides the problem, it doesn't remove them for stream visitors -- many people will not want to run extra Firefox plugins anyway that might make their browsing experience more unstable.
Yes, being able to ignore comments on a photo would be great -- or just sorting them by the order the comment was made versus most recent activity. I think I asked for that a year or more ago, and it's a fairly well wanted feature that would also reduce the annoyance of people submitting old photos to new groups and having trouble reading relevant new comments because you've commented too much. In this way, Flickr is seemingly discouraging commenting -- because I don't want to comment where someone would later submit to gif groups, and I'd lose out on being able to read responses I care about.
Deleting comments is somewhat troublesome, but I do it to emulate this...
I don't get much peace of mind from a greasemonkey script either, because it isn't so much that they bother me, it's that I'm bothered that these are on my page for others to be bothered by. It's very bothersome.
Well put. My thoughts exactly.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
_mpd_ edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
I fell into that gif pitfall when I joined and now I just delete them leaving a note in the comments to the person that put them there. Also I had a photo in explore number 456 it stayed there for a cpl of days I did a bit of a experimnet, someone added a gif, to one ogf those add1/comment on 5 groups, joined, posted my pic, unjoined and left the gif on my photo, the photo was dropped that day from Explore. I don't put much merit on Explore but if those gif and add1/comment on 5 groups put one more gif on my photo that is in explore I will block the person who put it there.. they are annoying, spammy and take away the attention from my photo, which is the whole point of posting them to Flickr.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Dancing Deer Photography edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
Just wanted to chime in (though I have before in other threads) and say "Me too!" Of course, if flickr stopped supporting gifs, period (not in the comment box, but as an "image" as part of the photostream), it might help a little, but I would rather just be able to turn off images in comments.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
FlyButtafly (a group admin) edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
Flickr. Please, give - us - image - blocking - for - comments!
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The main problem is that its 2 problems?
You have the problem f people adding them to your photo's and the problem of people adding them to photo's of contacts/photo's you commented on etc.
Short of draconian measures adblock may be the best way to deal with other peoples.. although being able to turn them off in flickr would surely be better...
For your own photo's... its a bit harder... as others have said adblock just hides the problem...
The simplest method by far is flickr just make a statement that its unaccepable and implement something to allow real invitations...(I don't want them but I know some people do)...
Dave Gorman came up with what I think is a good idea
www.flickr.com/groups/flickrideas/discuss/72157600243571746/
I just can't see it working unless flickr actually makes a statement and shows it will take action....
It would be simple to have a user setting for not wanting graphic invites.... it could even have overrides...
So imagine your replying to a topic on the name of some insect.. and want to post a photo of the same species (etc) then when you use the img tags when you submit it could inform you...
"This user has asked for no graphic invites to their photo(s) please ensure you are not submitting a group invite with a picture - OK,Cancel"
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Apparently now, fake awards are being given in people's photostreams, which leads them to a phishing site.
It won't help in the other security issues, but disabling images in comments would help out in this case.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Though it would nice to lose these annoying images, it would require url's to be disabled as well to tackle this security issue.
Ah well we'll see what happens.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
While I'm all in favour of no gifs (except for the giant pink sword, which makes me laugh), would image blocking mean you couldn't post photos as comments? Because some of my very favourite comments are those where you have relevent pictures in them - for example when I take a photo of another flickrr taking a pic of me, and they post their point of view below my photo - or when I'm documenting changes to a place (especially with graffiti) and people post their pics at different times.
This is one of the things that makes flickr special to me, and I'd really hate to lose it - much more than I dislike the gifs
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@knautia: You will not lose everything if flickr implement it as most users request it, as an option you need to activate for your very own account. So the blocking will not be efective for your photos is you want to keep the possibility to accept photos in comments.
Unfortunately for flickr its not easy to detect if its an group award thing or a "useful" photo so if you choose to block the "gifs" and group icons for you you would also lose the ability to recive photo comments.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Click here for a potential solution.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
andreas, so what you're saying is that the proposal is that people are offered only 2 options - allow html in their comments *and* animated gifs, or don't allow either? That seems a little restrictive - surely there must be another way! Personally I prefer Dave Gorman's suggestion as linked to above, but I really wouldn't want flickr to get tough on *all* html comments because people don't like one of the many, many, many ways they're currently used
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
qkanutia: Yes this is also an option too, but wouldnt solve the problem completely as its still possible to use HTML to put group awards into the profile. If you really want to stop them the only way is to block the img-tag, not entire HTML in comments.
For reducing the group icaon/awards spam the linked Idea is sufficient for sure.
Also some people are not accepting of any graphical content posted to the comments sections of their photos. For those people the given solution is also not sufficient too.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A good way may be a moderating system. With various options, in a way like Wordpress' Askimet works.
-I post for the first time a comment on "X" photo, using the img tag. Then the comment will be auto-moderate, ready to be accepted or rejected by the photo author. By allowing, the author can decide to automatically accept comments for that user or keep reviewing them.
Once commenter have no restrictions, he/she can post all IMGs he/she wants.
I know this can be very troublesome, since lot of people have zillion of comments. A single panel control is impossible, maybe some little icons near username/avatar to toggle automatic mod on user on/off?
Thats my 2cent, and sorry for my bad english.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Jowah edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
@knautia
While I'm all in favour of no gifs (except for the giant pink sword, which makes me laugh), would image blocking mean you couldn't post photos as comments?
No,ad block would block the unique URL of the gifs. Block one of those jifs and all coming from the same URL are blocked. If a photo was in a comment you would have to right click it and select Ad Block Image then only that image would be blocked. Mind you, those gifs would only be blocked from your viewpoint, other people would still see them unless they have also ad blocked them.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Its weird... I just blocked some of the people on this thread...
Why does it have to be such hard work..?
Apparently the flickr way to deal with unwanted crap is blocking the person... the alternative flickr suggest is .. yep blocking the person and if that doesn't work you can always block the person....
Im not allowed to say who or I will get banned from flickr... but someone invited one of my photo's called "NO GRAPHIC INVITES PLEASE" with a graphic invite.... flickr's answer Im at fault for naming him/her?
They didn't do anything wrong by posting a GIF invite to my photo? that specifically asked not?
How does it get to be click on the person, select profile, scroll down through the frankly offessive crap in their profile ... then find/select block... then confirm then confirm again...?
This is the flickr approved way to deal with people sticking offensive comments in your photostream...?
How can it be so hard... why can't I just click the person and block them directly?
Seriously I just want a list of names of people who like GIF comments and block all of them... regardless because thier opinion is worth absoluely ZERO to me even when they are not posting GIF's...
100% of the people who post GIF's can leave tomorrow and all I see is a better flickr! Some of these are actually great photographers but I'd still rather they leave and take their great work with them than post one GIF on ANY of my photo's...
edit: Wouldn't it be nice of you could just click the person who has defaced the photo and block them?
Even better would be to be able to block EVERYONE who is in that group....
Surely there is a way to block everyone in a group in one go?
We could then just select about 5 groups and block all members ... and then noone in that group would be able to deface our photostream...
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
--ex Paris (now London) Steve-- edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice of you could just click the person who has defaced the photo and block them?
You can. I just blocked you directly from this page. Sure it takes 4 clicks, because they want to confirm you really want to block them, but surely this isn't a huge burden?
Do you really expect Flickr to get rid of a sizable minority of their users because one free user really really doesn't like them?
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Paris Steve:
They didn't do anything wrong by posting a GIF invite to my photo? that specifically asked not?
They have not contravened any Flickr rules so Flickr cannot take any action against them.
How does it get to be click on the person, select profile, scroll down through the frankly offessive crap in their profile ... then find/select block... then confirm then confirm again...?
You don't have to go to that length, there is an option on the drop down menu on their icon in the comment they made to "Block", it is at the bottom of the menu. Right click it and select open in new page/tab and you don't even have to loose your place.
Seriously I just want a list of names of people who like GIF comments and block all of them... regardless because thier opinion is worth absoluely ZERO to me even when they are not posting GIF's...
You are wishing for the impossible, Flickr would never compile a list like that and spend resources on the impossible task of keeping it up to date. You'll have to deal with it case by case or use ad block on the gifs.
How can it be so hard... why can't I just click the person and block them directly?
You can, see above.
Even better would be to be able to block EVERYONE who is in that group....
Surely there is a way to block everyone in a group in one go?
There is a saying about "Tarring everyone with the same brush". To block everyone in a Group because of the actions of a very small number is grossly unfair and would lead to serious complaints against Flickr if they allowed it not to mention that groups have members joining and leaving constantly. Of course you could always set your Default Photo Privacy > Who Can Comment www.flickr.com/account/prefs/photoprivacy/?from=privacy to something other than "Any Flickr User", set it to "Contacts" and your problem should go away. Of course you may feel that is unfair to non contacts who wish to leave a worthwhile comment, but, it probably isn't as unfair as blocking all members from a group.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... which is why I suggested a way of blocking the group rather than blocking individuals.
That way, the individuals could still view, comment and favourite your photos but you wouldn't receive invitations to - or awards from - groups you've already decided you're not interested in.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Canopus.. that's a much better method :D
There is a saying about "Tarring everyone with the same brush". To block everyone in a Group because of the actions of a very small number is grossly unfair and would lead to serious complaints against Flickr if they allowed it not to mention that groups have members joining and leaving constantly. Of course you could always set your Default Photo Privacy >
I guess people would complain but I can't see any justification for that....
I mean I block anyone I see who has submitted a GIF to anyone... its just a slow way to do it...
I'd rather just block those who submit unwanted ones... since 90% of the people (or more) who are posting them are not causing any offense....
The tarred by the same brush works 2 ways.... as in they decided to join the group... I didn't force them to join it... and they are joining a group they know pisses off a lot of people... (or more accurately a few piss off a lot of members)
As Dave say's if you have no interest in that group it would be great to just not receive more than one invite from that group...
I like Dave's idea linked above ^ but I think a lot of these "invites" are not really invites... but advertising...
They attach them to a popular photo, preferably in explore and extend an invite... with a GIF attached...
Its free advertising... ?
I'm sure a lot are genunine invitations... but how many are purely invitations? How many times does someone post a GIF invite and delete it after the person joins or has ignored it?
I don't think they do because I think it at least serves a double purpose... and in some cases the only purpose it serves is advertising that group using someone elses photo...
You are wishing for the impossible, Flickr would never compile a list like that and spend resources on the impossible task of keeping it up to date.
Erm flickr don't need to do anything apart from stop threatening people who compile a list of people who post GIF's when they have been requested not to...
If one person is blocked they can encourage the rest of the group to go and piss you off... and flickr will not lift a finger because its "a group"...
They have not contravened any Flickr rules so Flickr cannot take any action against them.
"Flickr is not a venue for to you harass, abuse,
impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid
complaint about your conduct, we will send you a warning or
terminate your account."
So yes they have ...
My photo clearly said in block captitals as its title
"NO GRAPHIC INVITES"
posting a graphic invite is clearly abuse and harassement...
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
posting a graphic invite is clearly abuse and harassement
Perhaps they simply didn't read the titlle.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dopiaza, its a long shot?
If their mother tongue wasn't English....if it wasn't in block capitals and REPEATED after 4-5 posts, if it had gone so they had to scroll down the page in order to comment ...
I'm not allowed to show you or flickr tell me I'll be banned... but if you saw the screen capture I made its pretty impossible they didn't see the big block caps and the fact I repeated the name with an "on black" so it said VIEW ON BLACK - NO GRAPHIC INVTES PLEASE....
But.. all that aside... they invited an image and they couldn't be bothered to read the title?
This goes back to what I said, its not an invite so much as a advertisment for THEIR group attached to my photo...
p.s In the past I have flickrmailed people POLITELY asking they remove the invite and don't do anymore.. its never worked the usual response is actually no response...
BUT it hasn't stopped them continuing to add invites UNTIL I blocked them...
The block from the icon is marginally better but you still have 2 "do you wish to" and more importantly you end up on manage your blocked contacts...
I just wanted to block the admins from one group that is particualrly pesky (guess I can't name the group or it names the admins since I was for blocking them all)...
and I did the 1st and end up on my "block list"....
Do you really expect Flickr to get rid of a sizable minority of their users because one free user really really doesn't like them?
No need to actually get rid of them ? Just allow those who don't want them a way to block the invites...and GIF's...
That's like saying ban those who post screenshots or graphic art? I'm not interested in this and I don't get it posted over my photo's.. I just got a contact request today and checked the persons photostream and found mainly graphics and screenshots... not my cup of tea so I didn't add them as a contact but no big deal, no offense taken or meant...
But that's not the same thing as them plastering my photostream with ads... especially since my photostream specifically asks not to in every possible place...
The point is its flickr who suggest blocking people who do this. Its not my suggestion, I'd prefer the one Dave said but flickr are it seems not going to implement it not take action about abuse and harassement when it concerns graphic images posted into a photostream...
This leaves us with blocking the people... ?
There are at least 10 sensible suggestions from allowing members to choose if images are posted in a photo to Dave's suggestion... most of them are way better IMHO than the flickr one which is if people abuse or harass you then block them, if they xreate a new account to do this.. block that... if they encourage thier friends and contacts to do it or their group... block everyone???
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
--ex Paris (now London) Steve-- edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
|
"If one person is blocked they can encourage the rest of the group to go and piss you off..."
You seem obsessed with the idea that people do this to deliberately torment you. It just doesn't seem believable.
Dopiaza's reading of the situation makes much more sense. Folks simply don't read the whole page. From their point of view they're paying you a compliment so it probably doesn't occur to them that anyone might ask them not to.
If, when they tried to invite you to a group they received a message from flickr saying that you'd already decided against a particular group they would have to be particularly sociopathic to go out of their way to invite you anyway.
Obviously you're convinced that would happen, but then you're already convinced that they're doing it to deliberately annoy you and... and... well... they're not.
A little more faith in human nature would help to put some perspective on what these things are. It might also lower your blood pressure.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dopiaza's reading of the situation makes much more sense. Folks simply don't read the whole page. From their point of view they're paying you a compliment so it probably doesn't occur to them that anyone might ask them not to.
If, when they tried to invite you to a group they received a message from flickr saying that you'd already decided against a particular group they would have to be particularly sociopathic to go out of their way to invite you anyway..
Apart from how is it possible to not see something in block caps... its not like it had scrolled off the end of the screen etc.
As for not inviting after flickr sends a message...
Why..? They invite me when I flickrmail them and ask them not to... they invite photo's obviously I don't want inviting...
The bottom line is you think that because flickr provides an easier way to "invite" they will use it?
The person who invited my photo is a group admin....
They have an "invite this photo tab" that does a proper invite that if I don't answer will prevent any further invites....
They specifically chose to cut/paste a graphic invite instead of the group invite...
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It'd be interesting to hear whether the awards icons and invite icons are considered an issue at all at staff level and whether anything is currently being planned.
It's not a major issue, but it does detract from the experience for some of us (and, obviously, add to it for others). Even without specifics, it'd be nice to hear whether anyone's on the case.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Apart from how is it possible to not see something in block caps... its not like it had scrolled off the end of the screen etc.
It's really easy. People don't look for something that they don't think will be there.
As for not inviting after flickr sends a message...
Why..?
Because I'm proposing something that would block their invite from reaching you. Going to the hassle of finding a work-around to still invite you would involve too much effort when there are so many people happy to be invited.
They invite me when I flickrmail them and ask them not to...
Because they don't read the page. They see a photo, they want to invite it and they go ahead. They don't stop to think about whether they've seen that photographer's name before... they don't even stop to read that photographer's name. I wish they would but they don't but it doesn't mean they have any ill-will towards you, only that their main aim is, presumably, to build a group, not to think about people who might not like to take part.
they invite photo's obviously I don't want inviting...
Obvious to you, but not to people who don't read your page, your name, your anything.
The bottom line is you think that because flickr provides an easier way to "invite" they will use it?
Yep. There's a long history of people choosing to do things because they're easier. Not many people use loose leaf tea since the teabag was invented and not many people use a saucepan to boil the water since the kettle came along.
The person who invited my photo is a group admin....
They have an "invite this photo tab" that does a proper invite that if I don't answer will prevent any further invites....
They specifically chose to cut/paste a graphic invite instead of the group invite...
They created the cut-and-paste invite because they wanted their members to be able to invite people too. They included a picture because they thought it would stand out. The invite-this-photo tab doesn't have that picture so they use the cut-and-paste version as well.
But if the invite-this-photo tab could have a group icon go with it and if admins could choose to allow regular group members to also have access to the invite-this-photo tab then there would be no need to create the cut-and-paste version in the first place.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, Dave .. I'm not quoting the rest... I think you probably convinced me that many cases are selective blindness, that the person is only looking for what they are looking for...
Its probably a fair assessment (mostly) .. and yep the people I mailed and asked not..
I'll accept that (so you have convinced me) ... I still think however that people should show more respect... and before they cut/paste actually take a few secs to see if the member has specifically asked...??? (Honestly it doesn't seem much if the real purpose is to invite someone to thier group?)
They included a picture because they thought it would stand out. The invite-this-photo tab doesn't have that picture so they use the cut-and-paste version as well.
But if the invite-this-photo tab could have a group icon go with it and if admins could choose to allow regular group members to also have access to the invite-this-photo tab then there would be no need to create the cut-and-paste version in the first place.
Dave, I honestly think the part I bolded plays a large part...
Obviously some invites are simply invites and well intentioned and the group just "happens" to have a cut/paste invite... however I really think a lot are just "adverts" in general.. not so much a "I really like your picture" as "I wanted a picture to post this graphic invite onto" ...
I think in the case I mentioned (which I guess you saw) the person was more concerned with the graphic part.... (that's my guess)
But also I think part of is it just lack of respect... basically they can do it, there is nothing you can do but block them so they do it and don't actually care if it offends or not...getting the plug for the group is more important?
Anyway... Yes if there is no cut n paste graphic then that would help tremendously but do you really think it will dissapear without at least SOME encouragement from flickr beyond a mechanism that is invisible except to the invitee?
I'm sceptical because in many ways these groups are competing... its kinda like election time when they want the most coverage... and the flashier and more frequent graphic invites are part of this "battle" between these invite and become huge groups ...
Most of us are just casualties, indeed I guess a few of us get unwittingly caught up in this but its basically the groups competing to have the most photo's, most members and using the available resources to do it...
My feeling is unless flickr do step in and say "the proper way to invite is" they will keep using the invites on photo's because they are seen by hundreds or thousands not just the invitee???
edit: For your info... I use loose leaf tea ??? (seriously, indeed come to think of it I might even photograph my collection ... and post it)
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
--ex Paris (now London) Steve-- edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
nobody does this stuff to my boring pics, but it super annoying to see an amazing image from a serious photographer, and a ton of retarded jumping hearts and trophies and crap all lined up underneath.
it would be so easy for flickr to allow the option, for each user to disable images in their comments...
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I concur! It's just getting way out of hand. There are many excellent photographers on Flickr whose photos I will not comment on because I don't want to see a million gifs (and yes, I use Firefox Adblocker, but blocking every one of them is a full time job).
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
they are hideous and should be preventable from being left in your pics or groups you admin, and it should be a flickr option to block view of such crapola in anyplace else on flickr where users allow it. let them, but don't subject those of us who loathe this junk have to endure it. also, limit all image posting to no larger than SMALL size in comments on pics or in groups. things take long enough to load as it is.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I would prefer to see text-only invitations and no bigger than 'small' for posted pictures (you still have the option to click on it to see it larger if you want).
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Flickr Ideas /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Flickr Ideas discussion threads