|
|
@Thomas Hawk: I really don't understand why you seem to be so angry about this, clearly Flickr don't want to have to force limits, but if this keeps the rest of the flickrverse ticking along in a speedy fashion then I'm all for it.
Imaginary work is always easier to do than real work. It is much more attractive (being more quickly done) and once you see the imaginary work, it can be very difficult to identify the real work it masks. People estimating imaginary work often assume they have all the facts in hand when making their estimates, which assumption leads them to believe that there is no “big technical hurdle” preventing its implementation.
from 37 Signals
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Having read the cribbing of Thomas Hawk and his 5000 contacts, and that other guy which his 19000 contacts I am wondering how they ever have time to a) take any photographs and b) do anything other than manage their flickr accounts.
I really am not bothered about a 75 tag limit as a lot of the tags I see on a day to day basis aren't exactly really accurate, and as for having 3000 contacts, I can't ever see it happening to me. Generally I add contacts whose photographs interest me for whatever reason and although it's nice to reciprocate people who add me, I don't always do if I know I won't like their work on a day to day basis.
As for monitoring contacts photographs, personally I use the RSS feed.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have to go with Thomas Hawk on this one -- the whole thing that made flickr so amazingly sweet eye-candy to me was the freedom as artists. We could check out thousands of other artists, all at one place!
I have numerous contacts, most of which I have made contact with in one way or another at sometime. That's why they're called "contacts". You can continually see what's up in their world, what they're doing, and check back on old buddies.
Will we be forced to input all our contacts into a third party database (like delicious) if we want to find them again? I'm sure as hat not putting all my contacts in bookmarks!
On the tag issue, anyone using 75 tags is some sort of stinker -- who does that?! Someone who won't be using up much of flickr's bandwidth. At the most, anyone will be using 20-40 tags -- I rarely use 15 anymore!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
noonespillow - in, what, 18 months or so you've accumulated 688 contacts. So how is the 3000 contact limit going to affect you, exactly?!
The one thing I will agree with in all this sorry navel gazing is that it would be good if Flickr released some better ways to manage contacts (e.g. contact groups, and ways to clear out contacts that haven't posted anything for a while, that sort of thing.)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I will start to worry when I have that many contacts. I think I have about 23 right now so I have a while before the worrying starts.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I simply do not buy the idea that people have more than 3000 'contacts' in a genuine social network. It just doesn't make sense
It seems to me that the people who are objecting to the contact limits the most are ones who have found ways to use the current implementation of contacts for which it was not intended.
1. Sharing private photos with practically anyone.
Er, that's not really that private is it? As many people have pointed out, make a group "Fans of Me" , post your private photos there and publicize it on your contacts page. Of course you won't be able to drive by force people to be members anymore but, well, good.
2. Tracking a huge volume of other photographers work
I buy this one to a certain extent, since a number people in my (very small) contacts pool are just people who's pictures I like. And while personally I don't believe that I could ever get value out of tracking more than 3000 people, if other people can the more power to them.
So why not spin off the watching part of contacts to it's own feature and keep contacts for permission management.?
I do think that as a photo sharing site Flickr should provide another mechanism for this tracking. A watch list instead of a contact list. Provides the same benefits but without the permissions overhead. Also if the number of people you were watching were never displayed anywhere I'd bet dollars to donuts that people would have fewer Watchees than Contacts.
You could also eliminate the contact spam. I can't see the point of sending a 'you were added to person X's watchlist' mail.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Xurble edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
---
Hi,
Calculation is very simple !
I use CONTACTs and FAVORİTES for remembering "a Valuable Flickr Member". I have calculated "I must remember about 500 MEMBERs during a year. Imagine that my 3000 contacts limit has reached and I must
1..Select member's URL
2..Copy member's URL
3...windows + D
4...Open(or find) a word document
5...Paste URL
6..Write member's NICK
7...Write an explanation NOTE
8...Close and save Word doc.
9...windows + D
(This operations will take minimum 2 minutes for an average person)
When I want to reach this member again
1...Find word doc.
2...Open word doc.
3..Search for this member in word doc. (Among 3000 contacts!!!).
4..Select member's URL.
5..Copy URL.
6...Go to browser.
7...Paste URL.
(This operations will take minimum 3 minutes for an GENIUS person)
HOW MANY HOURS WILL I SPEND for 500 contacts DURİNG A YEAR ???
FOR ONE TİME USING
3min. x 500 + 2 min. x 500 = 2500 min. = 40 hours aprox.
(American citizens spend more than 1000 hours in a year for watching TV and they will easily spend 40 hours for recording/remembering Flickr members)
Present method (adding contacts and adding favorites) is spending about 20 hours in a year.
unnecessary HOURS = 40 hours - 20 hours = 20 hours
unnecessary 20 HOURS x 10 millions people x 10 $ ( for an hour) =
2 BİLLİON $ !!!!!!!
Is there 10 million members on Flickr ? Please look at www.fotolog.com main page . There is over 6 millions accounts and raising ! İmagine Flickr !!!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
lonely walnut tree edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Not sure why Thomas Hawk is so upset about all this?
Gee, I wonder why.
Big publicity for ZoooooomEr, I guess. Bet it overwhelms their servers again.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Having read the cribbing of Thomas Hawk and his 5000 contacts, and that other guy which his 19000 contacts I am wondering how they ever have time to a) take any photographs and b) do anything other than manage their flickr accounts.
Winds and Breeze.
Mostly by eliminating most sleep from your life, optimizing time spent waiting, etc.
You'd be surprised what that can do.
In addition to my flickr time, I also have my zooomr time (not as many photos favorited there yet but working on it), my blogging, shooting 200+ photos every day (trying to build a library of 500,000 images before I die), processing photos every day (ugh), my day job, family, non profit volunteer work, etc. etc. Staying focused, goal oriented and organized helps.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You 3,000 PLUS contact whores really need to get over yourselves...
Your really NOT as great as you think you are.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
By the way, unlike the yahoo ID topic, I do understand why some people are upset about this. (I mean aside from the ones from other photo sites trying to trash Flickr for competition's sake.)
People get used to one way of doing things and don't like to change. The fact that alternative ways of doing the same things are here (groups, passes, etc) doesn't help when you realize that you have to change a thought process. The fact that the end result with the alternative will be superior in several ways doesn't help either. People just need a little time to get over the initial shock.
So, folks, you've got a little over two weeks to set up groups and sets.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Who said someone with more contacts made them greater? As far as I can see, no one said they were better -- though maybe you read it differently.
I admit I don't have 3,000+ contacts, but hey! -I might need/want that many eventually. And it's more the moral of the thing..putting limits on Flickr.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi, this is the first time I have ever made a complaint about flickr. I have been totally impressed with this site until now.
What website takes away functionality from users and calls it progress?????!!!!!!
You bet you next years paycheck that you will lose many customers because of this change.
I hope you reconsider this move before you damage a glorious thriving online community.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As Mike said above, I really hope they decide their mind. I know myself, among other flickrites, have already considered moving.
You can't take away and say you're giving -- as said above! It just doesn't work that way.
And this is not a cheap trick that other photo sites are trying to pull -- flickr did it to themselves. (Bullet in foot.)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
First off, I'm shocked to learn I'm not one of Thomas Hawk's contacts. I guess it really is quantity over quality. Thomas, you realize that if you do follow through and send a personalized flickrmail to each person that you drop, in all likelihood that will be the first communication any of those people received from you.
That said, at least Thomas has a rabbit in this race (I love rabbit races, it's like ping-ping balls on mousetraps. but fluffy). Some of you are griping about your loss here, without any actual loss. Greenteaphoto? you're shocked that you're now limited to 3000 contacts? damn yahoo? You've got a grand total of 172 contacts now, when exactly do you think this is going to destroy your soul? Grogg? you've got 251. puh-lease.
Anyone else who wants to compare Flickr to MySpace or Facebook? you should go take a look at MySpace or Facebook. IF that's success, I'm happy betting on the losing rabbit.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
/me: troutslaps Thomas Hawk. Just because.
Thomas, "eliminating most sleep from your life" is really stupid. The human brain requires eight to nine hours of sleep for good health.
I suppose those who use Flickr for a publicity machine won't like these limits, but I do.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Go over to Facebook or Myspace? Those are simply networking sites -- Flickr is a big art gallery, with mini-art-galleries, where the artists can walk through the gallery and meet people, keep connections, help eachother, discuss photography, learn and give.
Not a gallery that locks at night.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@lonely walnut tree: The thing you're ignoring is that there are only a few hundred people here (not 10 million) with bad enough OCD that they feel the need to have more than contacts, let alone track any excess ones in a Word document.
Besides which I could come up with a system to automate those 16 steps in about 5 minutes and never have to repeat them again. You're a troll.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Limiting the number of groups, the number of tags, the number of contacts... The only thing missing is the number of pictures you're allowed to have in your stream... Adding this and you can easily introduce a more expensive special pro account without any limitations... ;)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@manganite - That's actually what I've been contemplating, while watching the discussion ping-pong.
They already have a free account limit of 200 photos. What if they creative a super-pro account, where there are no limitations!
Wow. Wouldn't that be new?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Searcher I just tried to add you. Actually I've enjoyed lots of your thoughts on things in the past. You usually have some interesting insights and certainly are active.
Here's the message I got when I just tried to add you:
"Add The Searcher as a contact?
Slow down there buddy...
You have reached the limit for the number of contacts a user can have. To add another contact, you must first get your total number of contacts under 3,000. Right now you have 5,082 contacts.
Return to The Searcher's profile."
Sorry about that Pal!
So anyone have any suggestions on who should get dumped to make room for new contacts? Is there a better way to do it then just by randomly dumping contacts whose name start with a certain letter. There's not even any intelligent way to approach this. As far as future adding contacts for me on Flickr it looks like I'm pretty much shut out. I'm sure that's just the way they like it too.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas, feel free to drop me as a contact if you are having trouble deciding.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas, you could delete your account, and thereby clear all your contacts out.
You could then create a new one to start again. But don't hesitate to consider that part strictly optional.
(Geez, when is someone going to call a Waaaambulance here?)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"So anyone have any suggestions on who should get dumped to make room for new contacts? "
You can remove me as a contact. I promise not to take it personally. If you needed to find me you could always do so in your reverse contacts. One down. 2082 to go.
"Is there a better way to do it then just by randomly dumping contacts whose name start with a certain letter."
Well if it was me I suppose I'd go through and keep all the ones whose photography I really admired, or whose friendship I greatly valued.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
crap! now I've missed the cut. yah some way to organize your contacts would be handy. I missed the part where someone revealed exactly how many Flickr members are above the 3000 contact mark, so maybe this wouldn't be worth making for so few. Actually, even with only a couple hundred contacts, I would love to have some way to organize them. For someone like Thomas, who now has to figure out how to cycle through between new and old, it does seem only fair to have some sort of tool to help. Like an at-a-glance order by least-visited contact, or least-commented. Basically putting contacts into the Organizr.
Same thing came up with the groups. If you're going to limit the number of groups, you should have some way to help people organize and choose.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Special, ironically you are one of my most favorite photographers to follow on Flickr. Even before your offer above I favorited a shot of yours just this morning. And I've really enjoyed watching your stuff over the past few years.
Ok, Brenda, just dropped you.
Well if it was me I suppose I'd go through and keep all the ones whose photography I really admired, or whose friendship I greatly valued.
Special, see that's the thing. I hate dropping people. And it pains me to think that I'm going to need to invest 40 hours or something to do something negative to a bunch of people who think at least enough of me to add me as a contact. I'm just not going to do it. I just won't be able to add any new contacts on flickr. Maybe I'll just set up a standard flickr mail response to people when they add me in the future that I'd like to add them back but Flickr won't allow it and that while I appreciate them looking at my stream, I won't be looking at theirs.
Terribly unfriendly. Not at all what community ought to be about. And entirely unnecessary to do.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Go over to Facebook or Myspace? Those are simply networking sites -- "
EXACTLY..... that was the idea behind the sarcasm.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No limits coming to faves, I hope? That is how I actually keep track of photographers I love. My contact list is a jumble of names that I mentally manage in imaginary concentric circles, and I know I will never have more than 3000 contacts in the circles closest to my heart--or my brain would explode...
Don't ever limit faves, though, please.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, I set my Contacts view to 1 photo (it's usually at 5) and went back to the end of the list -- and found that a good 20 or so of my a bit over 1000 contacts hadn't uploaded a photo in over a year. I dropped a few of them, then realized it really didn't matter since I'm a long way from the 3000 limit, and stopped. But it wouldn't be so hard to identify inactive contacts that way.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I understand Thomas, but i'm sure you are in the minority. Most people with as many contacts as you have probably don't really care about (nor ever look at) the streams of those they make a contact. Like the guy with 19000 contacts. Apparently he has me added but I've never heard anything from him, nor realized he had even added me until I saw his post here and looked at his profile.
Don't know if you'd agree, but I think there are some people that just add anyone and everyone as a contact in hopes that they will get more views to their own stream. Once again I do not mean you. You are clearly in the minority and do care about your contacts. That's why it's so frustrating for you.
You are also one of my favorite photographers on flickr but I meant what I said. If they are going to make you cut down your contacts I'd totally understand if I was one that was cut and would not take it personally.
edited punctuation. Got a little type happy.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Special edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Man, this one just kills me. I just got a notice from Scott Smith saying that he added me as a contact. I met Scott at McDonald's the other day (don't ask, I only go there about once a year, I used to make my once a year trip there in March because of the Shamrock shake which sucks now that they've discontinued it) And yes I know that I'm in danger now of getting kicked out of the animal rights group.
Here's the photo of the two of us: www.flickr.com/photos/desertboy/368781637/
but now I can't add Scott back:
"You've been sent a Flickr Mail from SOSmith:
------------------------------------------------------------
:: Newly added contact
Thomas, thanks for taking the time from your meal at
McDonalds last week to allow me to take a photo.
I enjoy your photos and blog. Keep up the great work.
I fly to San Francisco each week for work and enjoy getting
out at night or in the mornings to take photos. There are so
so many places to take great photos here.
See ya around SF.
I'm new to flickr and am disappointed with the changes.
------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to this message, click here:
www.flickr.com/messages_read.gne?id=72157594510926457
To update your email settings, click here:
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/notifications/
The Flickr Team
www.flickr.com
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Don't know if you'd agree, but I think there are some people that just add anyone and everyone as a contact in hopes that they will get more views to their own stream. Once again I do not mean you. You are clearly in the minority and do care about your contacts. That's why it's so frustrating for you.
Special you will always make the cut. Your photography rocks. But this is why Merkley's idea about reciprocity makes all the sense in the world. If someone is just collecting contacts and adds 20,000 fine. limit them. But don't limit reciprocation for your most active users who now feel shut out from adding more people. Why won't anyone address Merkley's suggestion. That is the clear and easy answer on this.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Why won't anyone address Merkley's suggestion. That is the clear and easy answer on this. "
I missed that suggestion. So much to read. Maybe they missed it too? Anyway it's worth repeating just in case.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
When I saw the title of this topic I thought, "Oh no, Flickr has gone totalitarian!" Then I saw it was a 3000 limit on contacts and 75 limit on tags and almost collapsed laughing.
I tend to use a lot of tags some of which are hidden now as they are machine tags, but, anyone trying to use over 75 tags must surely be trying to write an essay with them and as for over 3000 contacts...!!! Surely that is contacts for contacts sake with a hope some will reciprocate and generate views as it must surely be impossible to follow that many. Or it could be that they are just a sad person with no friends in the real world and having that number of contacts on paper makes them feel wanted.
Well, at least I no longer feel I may over tag at times :-))
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
People, please build bridges instead of walls! I feel like I have to step in and stop everyone to say -- don't fight about it!
Flickr was a nice little land where we all came together, forgot we were from different countries, overcame the language barriers with photos.. And now this is tearing us down with critisim and banter.
Will Flickr please speak up and do something about this?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas, since you are so outraged, why don't you just start your own company and clone flickr, tweaking the features to suit your fancy?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I also want to register my protest about this particular restriction of contact limit on users. Flickr is a social networking site emphasizing photography, so the contacts are crucial. I have under 600 contacts, limited only by my time availability, but the feedback from regulars is the most valuable asset to this network. Many social networking sites are free, but many of us are willing to pay a premium for a desirable service focused on our interests as (mostly) amateur photographers. Those of us who pay should not be limited in number of contacts.
I don't have an issue with the tag limit and haven't seen much flack over that.
I have appreciated Thomas Hawk's faves and comments from time to time and I appreciate his work and his passion for free expression. Thomas, don't start with the C's please. ;)
The gentleman earlier has a point (though perhaps not delicately conveyed), that it might be better to ask first and then decide, rather than the other way around. I would think the facebook experience might be recalled in this regard.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's much more fun and important to be outraged.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
-----
-Western People don't use BRAİN and KNOWLEDGE for DECISIONS.
-They are ONLY USE HEARTS and FEELİNGS.
-They don't want applicable RESULTS.
-Western people want only ADRENALIN of DISCUSSION.
GO AHEAD !
@ wooble: Your mathematics is really so week . How can you live with this small math ? Really increadible !!! After 6 years every Flickr members will have 3000 "contacts plus faves" for remembering other members !!! Did you understand or should I call your primary school teacher ?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
lonely walnut tree edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
maybe wooble was disputing this statement: I have calculated "I must remember about 500 MEMBERs during a year.
I've been here 2 1/2 years and I have 261 contacts.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh well. At least it will reduce the prospects for tag and message spam. Do you remember complaining about that? I'm sure a lot of Team Whine did. They complain about most things.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If it cuts down on the attention-grabbing and increases a bit of performance along the way, these changes are totally fine with me. Bring them on.
I recently cut my contact list down because 150 was too many. 3000 is totally fine :)
Flickr shouldn't be about attention seeking. Find a few folks who you like a lot, and comment on everyone's, but anyone with 3000 contacts can't have a meaningful interaction with any of them on a standard basis -- it's reciprocation to the point of building an audience.
You won't find much of Flickr complaining about this because it's an incredibly small few that are affected. However, those affected are a bit vocal :)
One particular user with a bajillion contacts added a couple of fav's immediately, reciprocated, and I never heard from them again. This seems to the norm. Reciprocation is an illusion, and those that are indignant about not being able to have 3000 contacts seem a bit hypocritical -- they don't care about those contacts, they care about traffic.
TH -- drop me too, I dropped you like a year ago.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
_mpd_ edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Hi !
I MUST REPEAT:
Let's think about CONTACTs . Why choose a person another member as a CONTACT ?????
What is main reason ?
If there is a Value (Very GOOD thing) "among a member's page or photos", another member will want to choose him/ her as a contact.
Because HE/SHE doesn't want to LOSE this VALUE
Because HE/SHE doesn't want to LOSE this VALUE
Because HE/SHE doesn't want to LOSE this VALUE
(Example esthetic, great art, new technic, amazing approach, important visual knowledge, etc ...) !
***************And there is no SIMPLE WAY for remembering
EXCEPT making him/her as a contact !!!!!!*********************
Firstly, FLICK STAFFS must invent a GOOD SOLUTION to this problem !!! 3000 contact rule is NOT A GOOD SOLUTION !!!
This is an ARCHİVİNG PROBLEM technically !
If you limit members archiving possibility(via contacts and favorites),
they must find a new way . FOR EXAMPLE putting adresses and memeber's nicks to a word document !!!!!!
Think about How do you archive a web page! I will say:
You don't use an archiving program and only
USE FİLE > SAVE AS .
Isn't it ??????
Yours sincerely...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@lonely walnut tree - Wow. If that wasn't a racist comment, I don't know what is. And a generalization at that.
First you say we don't use brains and love arguing, and then you go and dig someone. After calling us out on our supposed lack of brains.
Wow. Ouch. That cut me deep.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Question to Heather (staff), or whoever knows:
Is this limit imposed on the contacts that I make? There is also a little section of people who have made me a contact where I have not reciprocated and vis-à-vis. I’m not quite clear on this.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Not everyone uses 3,000+ contacts, apparently. Some don't even have 1 contact.
Now everyone has 3,000+ friends (real life now!). Some don't even have 1 friend.
So -- are we all the same? Nope. Is that bad -- no. We all need different amounts. Flickr: Not everyone is going to use 3000 or more contacts, but the people who are, need it, apparently enough. Not everyone out of your millions of users are going to have hundreds of contacts. Many will have zero.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
---
Dear Brenda Anderson,
There is no ONE WAY to remember a Flickr member . There is 2 ways:
-Adding contact list
and
-Putting a photo of this member to FAVORİTES
You say I have 261 contacts . Please say me
CONTACTS + FAVES = ?
I will wait your answer .
(NOT: I have only 15 contacts but I have
186 = Contacts + favorites )
Yours sincerely...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Shhhhh, lonely walnut tree, don't give them any ideas! Flickr puts limits on my faves and I'll cry {:-(
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There is no reason to limit my contacts. Saying that it slows *my* page loads is a BS answer. And even if that were the case then fine, I suffer with slower loading pages.
I only read the first page, so perhaps someone already answered this, but there's a good technical reason for implementing things like 3000 contact limits.
The biggest reason that I see, as a database administrator, is that performing a join over 3000 users' photostreams is one thing.. but performing a join AND ordering the results of that join is extremely computationally intensive. I'm guessing Flickr might be running into situations where these hardcore users are loading their "My Contacts Photos" page and the resulting database join is so complex that it's forcing the database server to write a temporary table to disk for the join rather than doing it in memory.. this leads to mucho mucho load on that particular database server which affects everyone (or a subgroup, depending on how the database system is set up).
Basically.. imagine looking at 10 friends and putting their birthdays in order.. and now imagine doing it with 20. The growth in complexity between those two tasks is not really linear (that is, 20 is not twice as hard), it's exponential (say 100 times harder or more).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You guys are going to have to work harder if you want to match the gratuitous drama of the group limit thread.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why should anyone have to justify the number of contacts they have?
Why should anyone have to justify the number of tags they use on their photos?
I have a pro account, and I'd rather have the 2g limit than a limit on contacts or (such a low limit) on tags. Do I have more than 3k contacts, no. Do I have pics with more than 75 tags, no. Should every other pro user be forced into my habits? NO!
Many flickr users don't care about tags/contacts/notes/etc... Some people don't tag at all, does that mean 5 is a reasonable limit? Some people have 0 contacts, does that mean 10 is reasonable?
Like I said, I'd rather see bw restrictions or tierd pricing than limiting the basic functionality of the site. One of the things that keeps me here is the great experiance. These changes, while only mildly unnerving, make me question the future direction of the site, and my willingness to continue to participate in/support something that makes such bad decisions.
Were any members polled about these changes? Do you even give a shit about your customers anymore? BTW I've recommened this site to everyone I know, and several people have joined (just one today, actually).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Special,
Merkley's suggestion was that Flickr limit the number of contacts to 3,000 non reciprocating contacts. This would clearly keep spammers out.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Haven't we already gone through the migration to a Yahoo! account to login to Flickr. We fought this when Yahoo! first bought up Flickr.
If they don't find a better solution to this I will be leaving. I don't want to have a Yahoo! account, or have limitations thrust upon me by the company that bought up a service that I love only to turn it into a corporate piece of shit!
...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
---
Hi !
I sould thank Flickr Members very much. Because, I have invented over 200 invention by means of Flickr members. I use internet and Flickr as a great library. Imagine that Flickr has NO feature of CONTACTS and FAVORITES .
How this inventions can be possible ??????
A Valuable member(who is choosen as a contact) always continues their creativity ! Not one time !
I and you want (or must) to follow this Great member forever ! isn't it ?
I only want to say this opinions with goodwill ! And "saying realities and TRUTHs" is not "racist comment" !!!!
Your sincerely...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
lonely walnut tree edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
For those that feel they really must have and follow over 3000 contacts or even have over 3000 and not follow them there is an easy and efficient solution. Ever heard of an RSS feed? Grab the Feed of someone's photos and not only can you follow them, but, right clicking on the Feed you should be able to open their stream in your browser. Of course, over 3000 Feeds may slow down your Feed Reader a bit to say the least, but, it should be easy to disable feeds of people you don't want to automatically follow and update them manually when you feel like.
As far as the social elements are concerned, drop them a mail to tell them what you are doing and they may even reciprocate.
[Edited typo]
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk,
So I gather that non reciprocatiing contacts are still considered full fledged contacts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
In that case I'll start by eliminating them. I really do keep up with my contacts - at least those who reciprocate.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I forgive you, I know it was not meant as a racial slur.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
noonespillow edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
noonespillow - please don't feed the resident fruitloop. In a thread that hasn't exactly covered itself with glory, about the only good thing you can say is that noone has risen to his bait. Don't be the first.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whew! tim_walls, for a second (heh,heh) I thought you talking about me.
I was yakking with a DBA I know and a previous contributor (bighold) who was talking about the difficulties of maintaining relational databases had a good point. No doubt the variables being juggled here are tremendous, but I hope Flickr remembers how truly wonderful and important Flickr really is. Chat rooms and such have never ever had any appeal to me until Flickr came along. It's like providing us with an excuse to get together in a neutral environment and then take it from there.
No, I'm not friends with all my contacts; but, yes, I've actually made some online friends here. I just think that's totally rad. I'ts like, the only reason I log on sometime is because of Flickr. Sometimes I get depressed and logging onto Flickr really is the best cure.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Thomas,
I think I just encountered the slow-down that Myles is referring to. I have a fairly fast computer on an even faster Internet connection, and normally, Flickr just blazes along for me.
When I visit your photostream, from the moment I click on the link to when Firefox says it's done takes less than 2 seconds. However, if I goto http://www.flickr.com/people/thomashawk/contacts/, Firefox waits for close to 13 seconds before it begins receiving any data from Flickr to populate the page. As Myles points out, there certainly is a significant server load going on as evident by how long it takes.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This strikes me as a very bad change. I hope you have second thoughts and don't do it. Especially the limit on tags per photo, but also the limit on contacts.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Cant Flickr just have levels of pro accounts ( premium pro) that allow things like more contacts , more tags, larger photos sizes, this works like congestions charges in London, you automatically get less people who will want to pay and you can use the money to improve the technology, even have these users on their own servers, just a thought.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickrs tells me that i have 3 photos that have more than 75 tags.
how can i find which are those 3 photos?
(i have almost 3000 photos on flickr)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@tim_walls
thank you for your comment.
i would like to share something with you.
When youre saying i am not qualified to say what i said then i see that you have no information who i am and what my qualifications are, through this you "degrade" me which is not apropriate.
What can you do different about that?
When you wrote in my first reason i didnt get the point of flicker limitation changes then it shows me that you also dont know what i am talking about.
First i referred simply to the anouncement which says:
---quote
We love your freedom, but, in this particular case, limiting these things will actually improve the system performance, making pages load faster across the site for everyone and cut out some unwelcome spammy behaviors. Both of these new limits apply equally to free and pro account members.
---quote
Second i was talking how it should be and not how flickr is doing it. (They may have made a mistake which im not aware of by now)
And again:
There is only one user per request watching your flickr fotos, therefore when permissions are loaded they only have to look for this users permissions connected to your profile as contact.
They dont have to look for all 3000 users permissions.
Im sure if a query - if i am allowed to watch someones fotos - slows the server just because he has a few thousand contacts then they can optimise the database structure. (by changing, optimizing the DB software/type, analysing the QUERY, making a bigger cluster of servers etc.)
If we compare flickr to google which has surely more entries in its database, then flickr must have done something wrong if they have to limit users in such a way to prevent a system slowdown.
Furthermore this Flickr limitation would be similar as when Google says youre allowed to index only 10 pages in google database because it would otherwise slow down their system. (which it actually does, but they have done something to find a solution!)
To my point three where you said that one transaction could lock some rows in the permission database i can think of other ways of adding permissions to a table without locking table rows and slowing down the system. Many DB creators have thought about that and presented their solutions. (not referred to the flickr db)
And point 5, the slowdown which appears for spammers through the new limitation is irrelevant as they use bots to register accounts, collect users and spam them.
thank you for your attention.
kind regards
Tibor
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tibor - Well said!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Being a "non-Pro user" Im not sure how much my opinion matters in this issue but from what I can tell from the last 3 pages of comments is that the majority of flickr users dont like the change, the rest "dont care either way".
My thought is what impact did 3000+ contacts and 75+ tags have to other users before? Im not an engineer or web designer so please dont unload a tirade of tekkie jargon, just simple-broken down facts.
I've gone through alot of Pro user accounts who have thousands of pics and have thousands of contacts, never once have I had an issue accessing their stuff. Now, if I had dial-up, then I'd have problem, but that problem would be internet wide not limited to flickr. It seems that instead of doing what the community wants, flickr is bowing down to the suits who couldnt care less. I'm kind of glad that I can't afford a pro account, from others comments it doesnt seem worth it.
I enjoy sharing my pics. Flickr seems to be a good place for someone like me to learn alot. I hope it all doesnt go down the tubes.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All the people that say that 3000 contacts is an acceptable limit do not understand at all either one or all of the following things:
- Flickr is a paid service and is changing the rules in the middle of the contract...
- flickr is saying that the 3000 contacts limit will improve performances but really the only thing that will improve performances is a hardware / software upgrade, not a limit
- Flickr decided today to impose this limit. Only a few users are really affected (about 300 seems to be according to other posters), therefore soon Flickr will realize that this didn't really improve performances and will decide to lower the limit to say 1000 contacts... will you really accept that?
Come on guys here is a matter of principles, don't you see it? If your phone company told you that "to improve the communication jams" they decided to allow you to call only 1000 minutes a month (but you need to keep paying the same monthly fee of course), would you accept that?
Yahoo has ruined Flickr and instead of using its power and the programmers they have to make it a nicer site they are simply dropping the ball on the users... After all what you gonna do? Lose everything and go somewhere else?
Oh maybe when it comes to renewal of the yearly fee I will write them: "to improve my cashflow I decided to reduce the fee to 10$ a year" :-)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Furthermore this Flickr limitation would be similar as when Google says youre allowed to index only 10 pages in google database because it would otherwise slow down their system. Actually, even if a query returns millions of hits, you are only allowed to view the first 1000 results.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm throwing myself into this discussion...
First of all - IMO many of the above postings are far off-topic.
I think this is about how we have used the service - and this is of course induvidual.
I have favorited a photo - to tell the photographer I liked this very much.
I have made a person a contact - to tell the photographer I liked his/hers stream very much.
This is not synonym with me visiting all this streams frequently.
i do though visit several of them on a regular basis, and often surf through my contacts latest uploaded photos.
Using contacts the way I have used them, have made me one of the 300 with more than 3000. I have at the moment 3100.
And to answer some of the posters:
* no - this is not about my own ego - it's in fact a humble thank you, and to tell I admire the photographers work.
* no - this is not about me posting nude or private photos. Visit my stream, and you'll see.
I have to agree with one of the previous posters (dont remember who) - we do all have an experience that the services we subscribe to on the internet, usually gets better - as time goes by. (gmail was mentioned).
I have no problem to agree with that I don't follow each of my 3100 contacts.
I have no problems to agree that this may cause technical problems at flickr/yahoo staff.
I do though have a problem with a prepaid service adding limitations.
I do also have a practical problem - how will I reduce my contacts in a quality way.
I would ask the flickr staff to really look at this subject again - and try to find other sollutions, that may not add limitations to the service.
And by the way...
There is a way to organize your contacts - for Firefox users though.
Add the extension greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
Install the script userscripts.org/scripts/show/5003
This way you can tag your contacts, and organize them.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@BigBold: so? what is your point? Google searches billion of pages for free... things can be done. Yahoo wants to make money out of this place? Cool, but why ruin the atmosphere with BS like "to improve the service we decided to not let you do what you were planning to do"...
Many of us are DBA or programmers and we all know problems and solutions. Yahoo has thousands of programmers and DBA. They should find their solutions. Not simply change the specs of a paid service.
This is dictatorship. And if we don't complain next time they will simply cut the service more and more. Eventually you will end up with a place full of naked pictures.
The point of 3000 being too little also is that I am pretty sure that there are more than 3000 great photographers here. So why not allow me to link them all while i discover them?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't have that many contacts, nor do I have that many tags per photo. But I'm quite disappointed with the newly imposed limits nevertheless.
The one thing I don't understand, though, is this:
1) Flickr announced new limits
2) Thread started, Flickr members posted feedback, questions & suggestions
3) Flickr members started a verbal warfare against each other.
How did that happen? Why? [edit] More importantly, what for?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As a Pro user, this continued Yahoo!-ification will ensure I don't renew. This is an engineering problem, and could be fixed by adding a 'watch' feature instead of decapitating contact lists.
Changing a contract mid-service, then announcing the change, and then asking for feedback is also questionable (and I don't mean just morally, but also legally in some countries).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
martn edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
i love the answer some people gave about putting the contacts in a word file... guys where do you live? it's 2007 and Google has FREE WORDPROCESSORS with FREE UNLIMITED DISK SPACE... and Yahoo wants to limit the number of contacts to come up in a few weeks with some new kind of account that gives more freedom? This is ABSURD!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Any one knows better services? Seriously I want to do the switch before is too late. It's gonna be painful since I have built my entire site around Flickr but there's hope... i am sure Google must have some solutions.
Good job Yahoo... you lost the battle of search engines and now you are going to lose another battle! What's next?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Visual Density:
No, what happened is:
1) Flickr changed the rule of a prepaid contract
2) some users started complaining
3) other users started complaining with them saying that 3000 users is WAY more than enough
Well that was not the point. Read my previous posts to see what i think the point... I can't believe that we are not all leaving... i am gonna checkout the new Google Images service and see if I can migrate there somehow easily. It's gonna suck but I am not paying more money for an account where tomorrow they will just change the rules again and again
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Francesco Gallarotti edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
300 users have more than 3000 contacts. That's 300 out of six million. Roughly 295 out of 300 (purely an estimate) have that many contact because they want to allow access to NIPSA images that not everyone can see.
So by my rough guess, about 5 people have any room to actually complain, as Flickr has made it clear from day one that Flickr shouldn't be used for porn.
Yeah, yeah, I know: free speech, it's not porn, etc, etc. My point is that *most* of the few people affected by this limit are pushing the edges of what Flickr allows already, and they should know that. Switching to a group or set with a GuestPass to allow access to their nudes isn't that big a deal.
Oh yeah, and *most* of the people putting more than 75 tags on a single photo are essentially spamming. Again, not all.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
*yawns*
lighten up people.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The affects 300 people out of 6 MILLION, is that correct?
If it was my ISP instead of Flickr, you'd get a nasty letter, then they'd just cancel your account.
The sense of entitlement that people think thirty bucks gets them is mind boggling...
--
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ohmygod. are you.. are you The Amazing Randi?!
huge fan.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
rgdaniel... can you explain better? in your last sentence do you refer to those 300 people or to all of us complaining for principles?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Don't have anywhere near 75 tags on any of my shots. Don't have anywhere near 300 contacts.
So, the new rules don't affect me even slightly. However, if the new limits genuinely affect as few people as seems to be the case, I therefore don't see any great benefit to be gained from their implementation...
I'll ask again - is there any relation to the load on Flickr's poor servers, and the decision to allow unlimited uploads for Pro accounts? How much have the upload figures gone up since that decision was implemented?
Surely the higher upload levels are placing vastly more stress on servers than people's tags or contacts?
I went to Thomas Hawk's stream; took about five seconds to load up the first page. Contacts list took about ten seconds. No big deal...
AM getting seriously tired of lonely walnut tree and his rants about Westerners - keep your racist crap to yourself...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas Hawk
Thomas have you considered cloning yourself? Just $25 an account
Thomas Hawk II , Thomas Hawk III etc....for just $250 you could have 30,000 contacts
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why can't I merge my Yahoo account with my Flickr name instead? That's the one I prefer.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
what's the difference? I don't know if you (john) actually read up on how this works, but it's all under the hood. your Flickr name doesn't change, it's entirely independent of your login account name. I was The Searcher yesterday, pre-merge, I'm The Searcher today, post merge.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
-----------------
Thomas Hawk II , Thomas Hawk III etc....for just $250 you could have 30,000 contacts
------------------
Yea.. that is what I am going to have to do.. I think I will have one for my work for hire, one for me, and one for my own internal web site work. or something not sure yet.. but it is a pain in the ass to sign out an sign in again.. and then I have to RE_AUTH all my api shit.. and it sucks switching accounts.. I hate to do that shit.
----------------------------
1. Sharing private photos with practically anyone.
----------------------------
i run a large network of sites.. I am sure I have between over 3000 members in my members area.. and I post links to flickr so they can seen new models / see test shoots / see what is going on.. even parties / things like that.. so 3,000 is a really small number for me. see the nice thing is I can keep a lot of my non-commercial work on here..
example.. marie, heather, ashley, and a ton of other people I work with on a non-commercial bases.. I shoot them for free.. or for trade.. and I don't have commercial rights to place them on my "pay" site.. but I can place them on Flickr and Myspace.. and then the models sign up and become active on flickr ( if you look at my family and friends some of the models have signed up just to look at there replies)
it is or was a win / win for everyone..
More ranting about groups..
also about groups.. I started a group last night ( it is not even 24 hours old) and I have over 270 members.. with in 10 to 15 days I will be over 3000 people in it.. like I said in a past post.. I have been on flickr for like 2 or 3 months.. I have 8000 contact...and something like 200,000 pages view which is good I guess.. I have a lot of inroads that lead to flickr.. the problem is there is no org. to the groups. the nice thing about my account is I can break it down by sets.. i can't do that in groups, which drive me up a wall. I might shoot a person one time and only get 8 good pics? ( should I start a group for 8 pics or marie?.. no that would be stupid) however.. I produce over 1/4 million pics a year.. should I just dump a lot of them in one group no.( but it looks like that is what I will have to do). so now I have to play a guessing game on how to org my groups.. ( should I do it by my model or by body style, or by hair color, or by location, by retouching/shooting style.. ?)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
fully... so many whinging people.
get off the internet already
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Richard....you could have a pc for every login id, network them into some big mainframe and be able to manage your friend empire.
1/4 mil a year is amazing and Thomas who set his life works goal at a mere .5 mil might have to rethink his shoot schedule. In fact its estimated a F5 Nikon shutter will only do 150,000 clicks till failure so thats gotta eat up a lot of cams...simply wow
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
250,000/year is a shot every two minutes (assuming no sleep or other activity). I am in awe.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
An F5 will do 5 FPS and considered the fastest gun in the west. So running full tilt for 13.8 hours.....add composure time we must be talking least 16 hours.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas have you considered cloning yourself? Just $25 an account
Yes, actually...
although not for the purpose of having multiple Flickr Thomas Hawk I, II, III, type accounts.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thomas have you considered cloning yourself? Just $25 an account
Yes, actually...
so he can order his clone to pleasure himself becoz he spends so much time on flickr - lamo
bam!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Çhrï$ j åšh edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
delete as waste of time
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
shankargallery edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Ok, I've crafted my new form letter to send to people who make me a contact (several a day, and oftentimes new people to flickr -- it will be a nice welcome for them).
Dear xxxxx xxxxx.
Thank you for adding me as a Flickr contact. Regrettably, while you may be checking out my photos from time to time, I will not be checking out yours. I'd like to be checking out yours but Flickr will not allow me to add any more contacts to my account. Flickr believes that reciprocity is a bad thing, so don't take it personally that I'm not adding you back as a contact. I would if I could, and really thanks for checking out my stuff.
If you want to see more on Flickr's boneheaded decision decision not to let me add you you can read up on it here:
flickr.com/forums/help/32686/
Also as I really would like to check out your work, feel free to sign up for a Zooomr account.
www.myopenid.com/zooomr
If you do this let me know your Zooomr url so that I can add you as a contact there and that way keep up with your work.
Sorry about all the trouble with this.
Love,
Tom
I'm going to send this letter to anyone who makes me a contact going forward until Flickr reverses their asinine decision to not allow me to add any more contacts.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sorry to tell you, dear thomas, that you added me as a contact and you´ve never checked my stuff.
so what´s the point here ?
you dont need to add people just because... i´m sure that if your work is good enough people will add you instantly, and you know what ?
there is no limit for that!
cheers
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
e-nikkos - how do you KNOW that Thomas hasn't checked your stuff? Entirely possible that he's done so several times and just hasn't faved or commented on anything...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If i check stuff and i like something i comment it. Maybe not the whole stream, but at least a few, the ones i like the most (like Thomas did a moment ago).
Thanx !
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
e-nikkos. Impressive stuff indeed in there. Really happy to have seen it. I just went through every photo in your photostream and faved a bunch of your stuff. You do really superb work and I'm glad to have had the opportunity tonight.
I may have seen some of your stuff in the past and not faved it, but more likely the fact that I've had less interaction with your work has to do with the fact that you only have 192 photos and that when you post you frequently will bunch your photos together by days.
I review my contacts photos most days, but the most recent contact photos will get more attention than everyone else's. So someone that say posts 10 photos a a day once an hour is more likely to have their work seen by me than someone who posts 2 images once every three days. This kind of sucks too but it's the way that Yahoo designed the system. I've always wanted a method where I could chose on a user basis the ability to see one, 5 or especiall *all* of their most recent photos as well as a feature to randomize the photos from the last day, rank by faves, comments, interestingness, or other criteria. I suspect the fact that you post less photos and tend to post multiple photos at the same time has the most to do with why I haven't seen your work as much.
For example, aqui-ali is my favorite photographer on Flickr. I wish I could see more than just the most recent 5 of his. I wish I could see *all* of his. I might prefer to see less from other users. I still want to see some photos from all my contacts but the way that Yahoo forces you to view your contacts photos today (only most recent by 1 or 5 most recent) sucks. This could be much better and if it were I'd be even more interactive.
A long time ago I asked Flickr for a simple tool. The ability to sort all of my contacts photos by interestingness. This would be an awesome way to review your contacts photos. I'm sure I'd find many gems in their backlog of work (as I do time to time by reviewing large collections with Flickrleech). But no. I asked for this from day one when interestingness was released and it would actually be super simple to implement.
Rather than limits and taking from reciprocity, Yahoo should be embracing it and finding even more ways for us to experience it like the way I suggested to them over a year ago.
But back to your work e-nikkos. I'm really glad I saw your work tonight because it is quite good.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Thomas Hawk edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
are there some future plans to limit the number of groups a user can subscribe to?
i am currently subscribed to 693 groups, and there is a good reason for such a seemingly high number: i have posted photos in each of those groups that i subscribed to, and i did that because those photos that i posted are directly related to the group(s) where they were posted (i.e. i am not a group spammer). and i also manage several groups.
i'm getting worried that flickr will loose quite some of its social interest if there was a group limit set too low.
of course there is already an incentive to limit the number of groups subscribed to:
the flickr UI becomes excessively slow (by design?) when opening the pop-up or menu to add photos to a group when the number of subscribed groups is large.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the sky is falling.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads