|
|
imspearman: Thank you! I can't believe no one as commented about that before... I didn't want to give it a political spin so I waited for someone else to make that point :-)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
------
OUR STAFFS (Rev Dan Catt and Stewart) DON'T READ, ONLY EYE SCANNİNG !!!!!!
Dear Staffs,
I wrote 5 messages to this topic and you did not READ them !
Do you want to TELL :
There is NO "feasible engineering solution"
except LİMİTİNG CONTACTS ???
If you want to mean actually above,
please REND your DIPLOMAS and seek for a new JOB!!!!
İf you don't mean above , PLEASE READ (Not eye scannig technic) :
****************
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 OR faves !!!!!! *********************
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 limiting contacts and favorites),
they MUST FIND a new way . FOR EXAMPLE putting adresses and member's nicks to a word document !!!!!! (If 10 million persons write to paper (or to wordpad) "their Flickr contact's webadresses" during one year,
in this state your country will lose about 1 BILLION $ in a year !!!!!
Please calculate !!!! I wrote how I calculate to this topic , please read it)
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 ??????
**************************************
In summary,
There is a lot of engineering solutions. Examples
- A new tool for REMEMBERİNG a valuable member
-A new and simple(NO Avatar No other advanced features) contact TOOL
-With a new tool for remembering PLUS contact limiting
- ...
CONTACT problem is "research valuable AREA" because, there is minimum 1 BİLLİON $ for your country !!!!!
Your Sincerely
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
lonely walnut tree edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
people keep saying;
"you cannot possibly follow the work of more than 3000 contacts"
BULL.
i regularly take glances at the work of 500 members at a time via flickr leech -- i can see 3000 in 6 pages in maybe 3 minutes. i usually peruse flickr leech about once a week which is 3500 people in 7 pages.
thats the fantastic thing about flickr is how they made it so easy to skim over so much material finding agreeable aesthetics. it's amazing how we can find great stuff just scanning over a page of 500 thumbnails. our brains are great sifters.
i wish someone would make a flickr leech type page for recent photos from all my contacts because i regulary flip through the pages looking for stuff that catches my eye and i often find new stuff that i fave. i am awfully proud of the curating i have done in my faves section. it's my favorite part of flickr -- no pun intended.
the most fantastic thing about the internet is the social networking aspect -- especially for artists. artists now can keep track of anyone and everyone that enjoys them -- gone are the days of tap dancing in front of unattentive crowds -- there is no need when your tent is already full with friendly fans waiting to see the next show.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i'm not a power user - but i do think that one thing that could help this situation is if there were a better solution to merkely's (and others, i'm sure) issue of wanting to let fans of their see their photos that have nudity without having them in public view.
perhaps there could be a level of privacy added... so instead of the choices: "anyone, friends, family, just me" you could also choose to allow "people who have added me as a contact"
if you could choose to hide erotica/NSFW photos from general viewing, but could make them available to anyone who has added you as a contact (and thus is a fan of your work, and probably wants to see more), then people like merkely, who only add contacts to allow this sort of viewing, would perhaps not have to add all those contacts?
just an idea.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
a better solution to merkely's (and others, i'm sure) issue of wanting to let fans of their see their photos that have nudity without having them in public view.
Sure. merkley??? can start a public group called "merkley???'s photos" Put a link in his profile that says: Many of my photos are private. If you'd like to see them, join my group. There is no limit to the number of people who can join a group, and that way, his fans can all see his photos, and he doesn't have to make someone a contact. He can then save his contacts for those people who he wants to follow, and the whole permissions thing is taken out of the equation.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
it's kind of kludgy to have to start a group, then add all your photos to it, though. (not as kludgy as having to add people as contacts just so they can see your photos, though!)
not to mention that you would have to look at someone's profile to see this- i rarely look at people's profiles, their photostream is what i am interested in, not who is on their contact list or where they live. (plus when you click on someone's name you are taken to their photostream by default, not their profile)
anyway, i doubt adding more privacy choices to photos would have the same detrimental effects that the contacts are causing (since it wouldn't increase the number of entries or connections in the database), and having more options about how and to who your photos are displayed would be great, in general.
one of the great things about flickr is how elegantly it works - in my opinion, you shouldn't have to be kludgy to make it do things as simple as letting fans of your work see photos the general public can see. when you add someone to your contacts, you are in essence "subscribing" to their photostream, so to me a privacy option that allows _anyone_ who has expressed desire to follow your photostream is a natural option.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i rarely look at people's profiles, their photostream is what i am interested in, not who is on their contact list or where they live. (plus when you click on someone's name you are taken to their photostream by default, not their profile)
Well, my assumption was that these people with 1000s of fans must have some indication that these people actually WANT to look at their private photos. I mean, one would hope that they aren't just adding 'friends' willy-nilly in the hopes that those people actually ARE fans, right? LIke maybe the fan has flickrmailed asking to be made a friend so they can see more photos?
Or even if someone adds him as a contact, he can send a group invite instead of adding the person as a friend contact. That way, the person can decide if they want to see more of his photos. merkley??? gets his fan club that way and people who don't want to see his private photos don't.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
I just have to say I am not glad with "Yahoo ?" ... all this changes sucks, now we must use "Yahoo ?" accounts (for old skool members), now we must have less than 3000 contacts, less than 75 tags ... If we are paying (I have paid for 2 years), I don't know how, but I don't care about "Yahoo ? " problems with performance, if they have to buy more servers, more bandwidth, or what ever they need, I don't care !!!! ... I'm paying, flickr was that, and they are screwing it.
I'm really disappointed with "Yahoo ?"
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
organiq edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
perhaps there are additional avenues for freeing up bandwidth. i have noticed a number of discussion threads in several groups where pictures posted on flickr are reposted in large sizes instead of miniature thumbnails. such threads go on and on and form a gallery within a gallery. some of these take ages to open. perhaps putting a limit on the no. of threads and their 'sizes' would further speed up the wonderful flickr experience.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
personne.de.chandigarh edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Yahoo eh? They've bled us white...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am a flickr user and fan almost since flickr started. But sadly now I have to say that its a real shame that Yahoo? had bought flickr instead of google (or any other).
Actually, what GustvoG says at the first comment (the statistics one) its completely true but people in this kind of system trend to grow.
I am just waiting a mail to my Yahoo? mail saying that from now on I can just send 10 daily mails, can have just 175 contacts in my address book, and space in my inbox may return to 6mb, just waiting...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
b3co edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Stewart said he thought restricting only non-reciprocating contacts was a good idea and that Flickr was considering it. I see no reason why someone needs over 3000 non-reciprocating contacts.
There is no technical reason why this solution can't be done. It prevents Rev Dan's fear of 6.5 million people each making 6.5 million contacts etc.
Merkley's idea was the right one and I think people ought to let complaints about the contact limits go until Flickr gets back to us on this one (hopefully soon). If they do this then this problem is solved as far as I'm concerned.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i totally agree with Thomas Hawk on this one.
Merkley was right.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That doesn't mean merkley isn't a dickhead though.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, my assumption was that these people with 1000s of fans must have some indication that these people actually WANT to look at their private photos.
I assume that if someone adds me as a contact, that means that they want to look at my photos (or, perhaps, they know me in real life). Again, my idea was for an extra privacy option to allow viewing by people that add ME as a contact, not people I add as a contact.
Or even if someone adds him as a contact, he can send a group invite instead of adding the person as a friend contact. That way, the person can decide if they want to see more of his photos. merkley??? gets his fan club that way and people who don't want to see his private photos don't.
That still seems kludgy to me... and is a lot more effort. Why should a user have to go through that many steps? I still feel like it's a safe assumption that if someone adds me as a contact, it's because they want to see my photostream. I think this since the very act of adding me means my photostream will be exposed to them every time they come to the front page. Now, if someone has expressed "I want to be exposed to/subscribe to this person's photos in the future"... what's the harm in (at that point, without any need to do anything else) then allowing them to see non-public photos?
I can't see any harm in that, and it would be a much more streamlined experience... Groups were not intended as a tool for one person to show their photos to many - that's what your photostream is for. Groups are for groups of people to interact. Yes, a group could be used to do what I am suggesting, but it's not as nice if it could be accomplished with a photographers photostream.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@joshsisk: This would completely destroy any notion of a security model on Flickr. My private photos are only "private" in so far as people who don't try to look at them can't see them? No thanks.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't assume that everyone who adds me as a contact wants to see my non-public (friends-only) photos. They may view Flickr at work, or with their kids around, and not need to see *those*. Or they may just not be interested in that part of my photostream. Personally, I'm far from thrilled when I add someone as a contact (not as a "friend") and they add me back as a friend -- with material in their stream I didn't know about.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow, lots of chatter...
Lately I personally noticed a bit of slow down and if these "reasonable restrictions" would help speed things up, I'm all for it.
Why people have over 3000 contacts is beyond me. And why people need to use more than 75 tags is just mind boggling.
As for the Yahoo account merge, Flickr has been fairly transparent that this would happen for a very long time now. So I don't see what the big deal is.
Frankly, I don't know where you all find the time. By all means I'm not a power user let some folks, but I do make my way around.
Cheers
Rannie (aka photojunkie)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This is a late addition, but having just blocked someone who 'befriended' me, and whose profile showed thousands of contacts and thousands of spammy group names... I basically have no problem with this at all. In fact, that particular user had around 3200 contacts, and my internal maths said 'over 3000 = taking the piss'.
There are obviously a few exceptions, and I do like the idea of limiting the limit, as 'twere, to non-reciprocating contacts.
Stepping back, though, the issue is with spammer-users who add contacts en bloc and tag as searchbait. You know who they are when you see their profiles and tags. It's a matter of coming up with an algorithm that is broad enough to nip their activity in the bud, but not so broad that it encompasses those users who, by dint of time and heroic devotion to the site, actually do want to keep track on over 3,000 other users.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yahoo! (eh hem) I mean yeah!
Restricting non reciprocating contacts seems OK with me, but the ones who actually take the time to return the favor, I think it would be a mistake to impose a limit on these. Of all the people who actually use Flickr, I really doubt many are going to have over 3000 reciprocating contacts - and if they do? They're definitely spending a lot of time and investing a lot of work on Flickr. Well, these folks should be rewarded.
I really think it's kinda' neat that there are some people on Flickr willing to invest their energy to become celebrities (striatic, Thomas Hawk and the ever fabulous shhexycorin come to mind).
P.S. this may be a moot point (no doubt, further improvements are coming down the pike), but better ways to organize our contacts would be cool.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's a suggestion: get rid of the 3000 contact limit.
Just kidding. :-)
Actual suggestion: put links on the announcement page straight to some of the more in-depth rationales posted to this thread.
Long-winded BS:
As a programmer with minimal database experience, my first reaction was (I think a rather reasonable) "3000 is a laughably small number." But that was before I knew you had 6.5 million users. And I have no idea what your design is, or had even given it a moment's thought to see any O(n^2) issues. I just blindly use some fraction of features on the site like everyone else, right?
Furthermore, since problems hadn't really begun to manifest, this preemptive strike *seems* (I stress the word) unnecessary and cruel.
As for The 300, it would be nice if there was enough info out there that they'd take one for the team willingly, because that's what they're doing. But willingness doesn't seem to be a virtue of a few loyal customers, judging from the kicking and screaming on this board.
I think a tiny bit more PR would have gone a long way ahead of time, plus some way to help these poor guys remove thousands of contacts. What a chore, and after they paid for the service, too! Though I don't share the frustration, I can certainly see how it would exist.
And for people with fewer contacts, it would have more clearly sent the message that you were doing your best to look out for them; maybe generating warm fuzzies instead of my reaction, which was a ever-so-slightly-negative "Whatever."
I don't really care about the limit, but it's a fun little social engineering problem to make it look like a positive change.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Can we do contact trading... i.e. I match up with two users who are happy with a limit of 1000 contacts if I can then please have a limit of 7000 contacts?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually... there is a bandwidth problem. I don't know if you guys in the US or elsewhere notice it but...
Flickr ain't that fast everywhere! I remember not being able to load a page in China within 30 seconds. Mostly the thumbs were slow. My colleague still has a simple dial up modem connection (there are still guys having this) and with this connection Flickr was extremely slow compared to e.g. ebay or spiegel online.
We're not all in Japan (those lucky guys with 100 Mbit/s) and yes, there are still seaquakes destroying cables and yes, sometimes the weather disturbs our satellite connection and yes every tiny bit bandwidth is helping somewhere!
Think of map, think of sets half private, think of any of those things you wanna do with your WLAN connection in a cheapy i-net cafe in Madagaskar and yes you want bandwidth! :-)
Let's talk about it as soon as earth is a digital globe with millions of 100 Gbit/s access points :), but first survive IPCC.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I only came across this thread by accident. I only have 900 contacts or so and make friends reciprocally for the reasons some others do and have mentioned - due due to content reasons that Yahoo doesn't like. But also to follow their work. To ultimately restrict my ability to share my creativity, or be faced to create a narcisistic group for my friends for my work and then administer that... thats not great. sure I can create an unwieldy favourites list in my browser but I have tried that and it is unmanagable.
I count quite a few posters in this thread - like Loupiote, Sol Lang, Thomas Hawk, and Merkely??? as friends. I like their work a great deal and while I can still add others like them as friends till I max out, it is too convoluted and time consuming for the uber popular to return in kind. Or for them to even remember I or many others exist as we won't appear in their contacts photos going forward. I couldn't imagine manually weeding contacts to add two or three. I probably never would do that. and how do you choose?
While it may be the 1% of folks here that get pinched by this, it is certainly akin to telling those who are causing the most clicks on our user content driven 'community' : "thanks for paying for your pro account, but don't be too popular or creative because that's not good." Someone wrote earlier that it was like telling Madonna she could only sell so many albums and then that was it. It is a fair analogy. Who are the top most pageviews on flickr? Is there a list of those folks? Are they causing a slow down because they get 10,000 views a day? Is restricting them next?
Seems like in some cases it is the old skool members on flickr who get slapped around the most as we have been around longest and have developed a following of sorts that is now a pain in the back end to flickr. Saying thanks for promoting flickr and making it more popular doesn't seem to be in the cards
Restrict the free accounts. Make an ultra pro one. beef up the backend database servers (put the big boys n girls on those beefy servers?).... but rolling out a blanket restriction seems harsh.
Maybe it is a north american thing, but I have never seen lag on any page on flickr. Only lag I get is when my groups dropdown loads when I am selecting one to post a pic too.
Mike
aka "2100 contacts to go"
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good thoughts W4B Photography. If you are using Firefox check out the greasemonkey extension for multigroup sender. It significantly speeds up how quickly you can add photos to groups.
I've got a link to it in this article that I wrote last week about the top 10 hacks on Flickr.
thomashawk.com/2007/01/top-10-hacks-on-flickr.html
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks Thomas. I will give that a read. :)
Mike
aka "2099 contacts to go"
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
NO to Flikr' s new 3000 limit contact!
If Flickr don't remove this limit I think I will signup for anothe account, continue adding contacts, and redirect people to my primary account.
I think is a stupid thing to limit a community that have millions people in the world,
I have the policy to add as contact to people that add me. Also I add people with good photos, and other that make good comments. In a way is like make an invitation to see our photos...
Flickr may think perhaps in a way to invite people to see our photos, a standar way, not sending them a mail.
Perhaps they can add a menu assocciate with the icon user, something like "Visit my photostream"
It would be, at least, a way to invite people without adding them, But still think is not good to limit contacts.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Furthermore, since problems hadn't really begun to manifest, this preemptive strike *seems* (I stress the word) unnecessary and cruel.
I don't know, having read the reasons, I can see the desire to catch a problem before it happens. I remember back in the day when Blogger seemed like it was going to collapse under its own weight. I think once you get behind the curve on something like that it can be hell on the entire user base. The two situations may be apples and oranges, but I am glad that folks are thinking about things like this.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't want to change my account to a Yahoo email address. I'd rather have it use my current email address. I have an account with Yahoo and don't want that associated with my Flickr account. I also don't want to have to create *yet another account* to use flickr.
Sucks.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
while i don't like the spammy behaviour perhaps there is a better way to deal with it. i have been added by several people that i have simply blocked. many of them were simply adding people in alphabetical order. perhaps there is a way to be aware of people that are adding people at a rate of several hundred an hour or in alphabetical order as i have seen!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
delete
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
shankargallery edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
We've heard your feedback and we've made a wee tweak to the contact limit change:
While you're limited to 3,000 non-reciprocal contacts, we've lifted the limit for reciprocal contacts -- that is, if you and your buddy have each other as contacts, it won't count towards the limit.
Thanks to merkley??? for the idea!
[edit -- typo]
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
power to the people! :) thanks for listening, flickr mgmt.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whoa - that was fast!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Great decision, thank you.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks!!!!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's a great tweak! Thanks very much - I like flickr again!!!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good result!
By the way is the contact page going to change to show how many non-reciprocal contacts you have? To make it easier for those above the limit to trim things back?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So we can all have 6.5 million reciprocal contacts again!? cooL!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
spidrwegian: If you're above the limit, the error message will tell you how many non-reciprocals you have.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Could not make Myles! a contact. Sadly, you can only have 3000 non-reciprocal contacts."
Does it?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ah, I see what you mean :)
from: www.flickr.com/people/flikr/contacts/
Wow! You've hit the limit for the number of non-reciprocal contacts that any Flickr member can have. (The limit is 3,000 contacts.) You can always remove a few of your 3,841 non-reciprocal contacts if you want to add someone else who doesn't already call you a contact.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Merkly "there is no need when your tent is already full with friendly fans waiting to see the next show"
Thats all quite logical but it makes me wonder what its all about. You post pics on the net for exposure of course but how much is enough? It seems lots of folks are just clammering to be seen and views/comments are some holy grail but being on the internet we lose perspective of the actual numbers.
About 50 people fit in a bus? So if you get 100 views thats 2 busloads of people, which is a lot. Being in a linup with 100 people is a long way to go. Saw your one image which 10 fully loaded 747's viewed, and its nothing special, not a dis, i like your stream quite a bit.
Makes you wonder in all this, contacts, mega group postings, tagging, silly awards...if all this limiting isn't just a design on Flickrs part to get the love spread around a bit more. Lots of the most profound pics i've seen here are lowkey, 100 views or less. Some real crap pics too with 10k views.
Getting views and people saying "nice" wont make you a great photog. If you have to stand on yur head and spit quarters to be seen you should really rethink all this time wasted and invest it in learning to shoot. Its all the same obsessive syndrome....counting numbers.
Coming to this site my first impression was a hourd of people shouting to be heard and not a real good compilation of what is truly good, written into the history books. As a web force of amature photogs shouldn't we be more concerned with viewing pics with objectivity than a social popularity contest?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Stewart and the flickr team for doing the right thing on this. I hope you all are able to relax this weekend. You deserve a big bottle of wine or maybe four or five of your favorite stiffest cocktails.
You've done a great job on this and all deserve great respect for listening to your users and fixing this one.
I really happy that I can add contacts again on Flickr.
thomashawk.com/2007/02/flickr-does-right-thing.html
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
will the contact page have a grouping for reciprocal, non reciprocal contacts/friends? then we could theoretically get in touch with some of them, get them to return the favour if wanted, or delete them, etc.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Great to see!!!! Thanks for listening to the people!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Holgate said:
Stepping back, though, the issue is with spammer-users who add contacts en bloc and tag as searchbait. You know who they are when you see their profiles and tags.
I have seen that I'm a contact or people who have a thousand or so contact, and have wondered why on earth . . . And I don't understand
what Holgate said. I wouldn't know how to add contacts en bloc if I wanted to, and, more important, what does "tag as searchbait" mean?
Thanks for any clarification.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If you're above the limit, the error message will tell you how many non-reciprocals you have.
Fab! Thanks Myles!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
-----
GREAT TWEAK ????????!!!!!!!!!!
This is other classical WESTERN APROACH
APROACH ONE:
BOND a mini sticking plaster to SWORD wound !!!! Everything is OKAY !
I must repeat :
This is not a social relationships problem , it is AN ARCHIVING PROBLEM. It can't EVADE with a great (!) tweak !!!!
***************************
APROACH TWO:
Western people wants ALWAYS to solve problems in ONE DAY !
You insist on "not reading of my messages". Because they need more EFFORT, more MONEY ....
I have made my DUTY as a Flickr member. This is my last message !
Rest of them is for you DEAR STAFFS ! Please FORGET lonely walnut tree's messages ! CLOSE your eyes like one of the three wise monkeys !
MEET face to face with continuously pressing problems !
At last, you will REMEMBER my messages.
Yours Sincerely ...
NOTE: Dear Flickr Members,
Please USE FAVORİTES as a MEMBER REMEMBERING TOOL
until Flickr Staff will limit it as 3000 !!! Wait their next mid-night COMMANDS !!!!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
lonely walnut tree edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Excellent compromise!
I, too, would like to thank the Flickr Team.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Perfect! That was exactly the change I wanted to see.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is the classic EASTERN APPROACH now to post loads of incomprehensible drivel?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Indeed, great compromise, but I'm not entirely sure it was needed. Kudos for the fast response either way. Please don't feel bullied by the community in the future, however. If you feel strongly about something, convince us, don't just give into us (the community).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yay!
now can you make it so every time someone adds me as a contact i get $1000 , a foot massage and a gift certificate to taco bell? THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.
THANKS FLICKR!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
in all seriousness flickr,
you have done more for me than i could possibly for you and i am very grateful for all of your work and innovation.
sincere props and thanks to everyone at flickr headquarters for everything -- i will buy you all a drink.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Gracias Flickr. Mucho besos en su caras y nalgas (just kidding)... Thanks!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
deleted waste
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
shankargallery edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
what does "tags as searchbait" mean?
Please?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Nice to see racism beating inscrutibility, Walnut. "This is my last message ! " - do hope you're telling the truth on that one.....
"tags as search-bait" means that some people add tags calculated to rate high in searches, and draw more people to the photos to which its applied. You see a photo of a Chevrolet tagged with Ford, Chrysler, etc - that's one example. Or a photo of an actress tagged with the names of eight other actresses who aren't in the photo.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is there a limit on how many people count any user as a contact? For example, I have over 1,000 people who count me as a contact. (incomming contacts?). I have about 400 people I count as a contact (outgoing contacts). The only reason I limit my contacts is because for me it's absurd to have more contacts than I can occasionaly visit.
But I hope no one is considering limiting the number of separate people who want to keep track of any one of us and our photography.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks, Dr. Keats.
From Holgate's message (way up the chain) I thought it was a tagging of other people's photos.
And I was wondering whether there is a way to set my account so that only I can put tags on my photos.
If search-baiting is a self-inflicted wound, then I won't worry.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
creativity+: There is no limit on reverse contacts (or as you call them, incoming contacts).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
delete
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
shankargallery edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
shankargallery: Please keep your posts on-topic and stop posting the same thing in multiple threads.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
With this contact limit change, the anger and anguish it caused, and the tweak made for reciprocal contacts, what exactly has been gained here?
As I understand it I can now add millions of contacts as long as those millions add me, yes? And presumably, if those contacts are reciprocal then I must be an amazingly popular flickr member. Therefore all those lookups and page loads that were going to be optimised by the 3000 contact limit will now continue to hold the site to ransom whenever they are invoked.
Wouldn't a limit on the number of contacts added per day or week achieve the same thing as far as stopping spammers running away with the system?
I just don't get it.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I dunno Alan. Maybe they looked at it and discovered there were only 2 or 3 people out of the initial 300 that actually HAD 3000 reciprical contacts?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Could be. Lots of people complain about those who seem to only collect contacts and do nothing else (visible at least) on flickr. A limit on the number of contacts added daily (say 25) would mean it would take 120 days to reach the 3000 tipping point.
As it is anyone can set up multiple accounts and quickly add 3000 contacts into each.
Anyway I trimmed back from the 500 I had last year so I now have only 125 contacts. Long way for me to go until I become a problem (in the database at least).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sweet!
Thanks merkley??? and for all who voiced your opinion. And thank you Flickr for listening!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda: That and to avoid people contact-spamming people at random (thousands of contacts, few reverse contacts), Thomas Hawk summarizes some of the points and links to a post by Rev. Dan Catt in his blog post:
But there were also very legitimate concerns with users accumulating large collections of contacts that could possibly be used for spamming, porn or other reasons.
-/\/
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Norby, thanks. That's what I meant without naming names. :)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Nice progress Flickr have made here WITH the users. I'm very happy to see this.
My deepest gratitude to Flickr, not for making the change, but for listening to the users.
It means a lot to us, or to me, at the very least, to know that we are still important to you. For that, I thank you.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this wee tweak sounds like a very good solution! thanks!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But there were also very legitimate concerns with users accumulating large collections of contacts that could possibly be used for spamming, porn or other reasons.
That's all very well but why wouldn't limiting the number of contacts made in a single day be a better solution? As it is, you now need to keep track of another level of contact and you have to check as every contact is made to see whether it is reciprocal or not. More lookups, more work for servers, slower flickr for all.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> We've heard your feedback and we've made a wee tweak to the contact limit change: While you're limited to 3,000 non-reciprocal contacts, we've lifted the limit for reciprocal contacts -- that is, if you and your buddy have each other as contacts, it won't count towards the limit.
AWESOME !!!! Thank you Flickr!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey Myles!..
Maybe you can make a small css change or something for all of us.
When I mouse over a contact.. maybe if they are a reciprocal friend..the mouse over is pure white.. and they are non-reciprocal friend the mouse over is light gray.
I want to clean up some of my non-recep friends.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Glad to see this was resolved for the most part. I only wasted 2 hours
pouring over all the cock fights and bashing to do it. Thanks Flickr.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks merkley & thanks flickr this is a great idea!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have faith in the marketplace regarding things that don't hurt people when manipulated by the marketplace. (Health care, for example, cannot be a purely free-market industry in a sane and compassionate society.)
Flickr is just not important. It doesn't make or break anyone's life. Essentially, it's recreation. When Flickr adds restrictions than bother a large enough number of people a competitor will arise and kick them in the market-share. They'll backtrack, lower their prices, and go on a sales blitz. But it will be too late. That competitor is waiting in the shadows, ready to pounce. Hint: Its name starts with G.
That said, would you rather have Flickr's restrictions or advertising on your pages? "This photo is brought to you the fine folks who make a little less toxic waste now than in the past."
There's no free lunch and 30 bucks for a year of lunches is just about free. How about paying for bandwith and stroage, just like the "real internet" players?
Three thousand non-reciprocal contacts? Do you believe they all look at eveyrthing you post? Do you get more than a thousand views within a day or two of a photo going up? If so, you have a valid beef with Flickr. If you want it to chnage, vote with your feet and your credit card.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Has anybody thought about suppressing the display of lists (tags, contacts, groups, etc.) where performance is impacted? For example, the precident already exists for EXIF data -- there is a nice little link to see all of the details... and if I want to see the all of the data, I click the link and wait.
Why not do that instead of continuing to change the rules in mid-stream for paying customers like me?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
David: To his credit, in the case of one of the more vocal opponents of the initial scheme, he is the CEO of another photo sharing site, so he's actually voting with his time even more so than his money. That doesn't mean he doesn't a) care about flickr contacts and community, and b) to stand up for something he has a strong opinion about.
Benny: we optimize things like that away where we can. In certain cases, the back-end DB has to take the hit even with pagination. For example, if people had to click through to a second page from a profile to see how many contacts and who, I think that would probably be a lot more inconvenient than the few cases (now) where it really drags. However, flickr continues to grow and change.
-/\/
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I l,ike the idea of
richard_in_vegas says:
Hey Myles!..
Maybe you can make a small css change or something for all of us.
When I mouse over a contact.. maybe if they are a reciprocal friend..the mouse over is pure white.. and they are non-reciprocal friend the mouse over is light gray.
I want to clean up some of my non-recep friends.
It would be great, and I know the sistem know this , because when we invite users for any grop it only displays reciprocal conctacts.... my be, when you open the user icon menu, con can have somethingl like;
- user is a contact
- user is a friend
- user is a reciprocal contact
- user is a reciprocal friend
but having a roll over notification it yould be the best.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
and, what of the suggested limiting of sizes of posts in threads for speeding up the flickr experience? it'd be interesting to be informed of the official flickr view on that one.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks.. I do a lot of beta testing and run a CMS company.. and that is one of the most requested changes on things.
if something is active = color a
if something is inactive = color b
if something is new = color c
blah..blah..blah..
and that shouldn't effect performance too much
I l,ike the idea of
richard_in_vegas says:
Hey Myles!..
Maybe you can make a small css change or something for all of us.
When I mouse over a contact.. maybe if they are a reciprocal friend..the mouse over is pure white.. and they are non-reciprocal friend the mouse over is light gray.
I want to clean up some of my non-recep friends.
It would be great, and I know the sistem know this , because when we invite users for any grop it only displays reciprocal conctacts.... my be, when you open the user icon menu, con can have somethingl like;
- user is a contact
- user is a friend
- user is a reciprocal contact
- user is a reciprocal friend
but having a roll over notification it yould be the best.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Very strange - got a FlickrMail from one of the other users in this thread, requesting that I add him as a reciprocal contact.
Slight problem... went to his profile, which tells me I'm being blocked by him...
Given the nature of his posts in this (and other) threads, and the nature of the images in his photostream, I can't say I'm all that disappointed....
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
About tags, not contacts:
I am shocked at the 75-tags-limit. For me, flickr feels like a whole different product, and less powerful now.
I use more than 75 tags for those reasons:
- i write them in several languages
- i have many Asian place names which - in their Roman transscription - occur in several different writings, all of which i want to include as a tag
Of course i hack in the tags as IPTC keywords on my PC for easy retrieval locally. And on flickr, i wanted just an online mirror of my pictures collection - pictures easy to retrieve, and easy to mix with similar pictures by other people.
This cannot be had with the narrowhearted 75-tags-limit.
Now, if a pic has 76 IPTC keywords on my machine (do i have to count them first??), it appears on flickr without any tag. It would be much better if - at least - you don't discard all tags, but only those over 75.
I find it absurd that there is no limit on your number of pictures, but a very low limit on number of tags.
Please lift the number of tags to at least 200. It won't disturb anyone.
If there are serious tags spammers, flickr police will sort them out.
Thanks!
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
when someone honors me by making me contact, I will reciprocate.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Two thumbs up:-)
I am listed as contact to people that I
don't even know. They have never
dropped one line on my pictures.
I am here to make friends.
I can't see how one person can interact
with that many people:-(
XOXOXOXXOXO
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
From the "your photos/tags/your tag" page:
What are tags?
You can give your photos a "tag", which is like a keyword. Tags help you find photos which have something in common. You can assign as many tags as you wish to each photo.
Is the wording to be changed in light of the limit?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ xmark.
"You can assign as many tags as you wish to each photo."
- Is the wording to be changed in light of the limit?
No! The newly applied rule is to be changed in light of the wording.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
xmark - might be worth posting that in "Ideas"; just in case it hasn't occured to Staff yet!
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am glad there won't be limits for reciprocal contacts and for reverse contacts who have me on their listings but aren't on my listings.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Would it be possible for to change the tag search so that it picks out individual words in a multi-word tag?
In this way if I travelled from Dundee to Glasgow via Stirling taking photos in June I could enter "Dundee Stirling Glasgow June". This would count as one tag but each individual word could be picked up in a search.
One member commented that they needed to enter the same word in several languages and these could then all be entered in one tag.
Just a thought.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Doesn't it already work that way?
(Not being clever or sarcastic; I just thought it already did that!).
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I tried it by creating tags on one of my images using words separated by spaces, dots, underscores, etc before I posted the question.
Perhaps I was doing something wrong; if so I would be glad to find out how to do it.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"put the tags all together inside double quotes and it will work"
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To search for single words within a multi-word tag, you click "Full text", not "Tags only" under the search box - it works. You could try it on "Penh" of "Phnom Penh" (of course, some have "Penh" as a single-word-tag anyway, by accident or on purpose).
But that's not a solution for the 75-tags-limit. For several reasons, we need more tags available. One is that i (and many many others) don't write the tags in flickr, but use IPTC-software to store tags/keywords right inside the file, so you at home and recipients of your files can use those keywords locally (and those very same keywords turn to flickr tags, once uploaded).
Sometimes the IPTC keyword search looks only at full multi-word-keywords, not at single words within a multi-word-keyword. And even if it would be possible to do IPTC searches on parts of multiword-keywords, then some users would opt (knowingly or not) to search for full expressions, not for single words out of an expression, because a single-word-search might bring too many results. I would never put several translations of one word into one tag or keyword expression.
It is very important to get more keywords here. For serious photographers and their audience, they can be mandatory. While i liked a lot of things on flickr and thought it is so much smarter than the rest - includinig the general tag possibilities -, the tag-limit is a turn-off.
(On a side note, the limit on image descriptions seems to be 4000 characters. I find that a tad tight too.)
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ok, Thanks
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Will there be a limit to how many favs photos you can have? :-s
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i think the tag limit is too strict. Maybe 150 limit?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
since there are no takers for the subtle suggestions for alterrnate means of tweaking, one might as well endorse fully the suggested limits on tags and contacts. people should learn to live by the motto 'less is more'. has anyone given a thought as to what would be the impact of wasteful bandwidth on global warming? hello! carbon emissions would figure someplace, wouldn't they. what do these tag and contact mad flickr enthusiasts think servers and clients run on?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads