|
|
Cyclosity,
I agree. It is an un-dismissable ad. I was just saying it doesn't bother me personally. What bothers me is that it bothers others. If they want it dismissed, it should be dismissable, I just wish the 'bashing' wasn't happening.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The way some people react on these forums after every little change, can you really blame the staff for choosing to take a step back and not be as responsive as they once were to every little question?
Yes, I can. It is their failure at community management.
It's very easy to dismiss this as "every little change" and "every little question", but that's not the situation. The current ad may be little, but the departure from the very clear and explicit "no ads" promise is not. Requests for clarification on this basic policy change are not "little questions". Weeks without responding are not quite "taking a step back". It's being entirely absent.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If they want it dismissed, it should be dismissable, I just wish the 'bashing' wasn't happening. - Special
Me too.
Flickr staff -
I once again want to apologize for some of the needless bashing by certain people previously in this thread.
Also,
Kindly, please, PLEASE allow me to dismiss the ADVERTISEMENT, that is showing up on my homepage. I'm going to ask as many times as I have to before my pro account expires, as I REALLY want to renew it. It's the only product of it's type I pay for yearly on the internet (excluding domain names).
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Szczur wrote I'm with Lu and the others who don't want to see this FYI, I'm only asking that it not be in the grey box, which I find is being overly distracting on my aging (but forced to be design-sensitive by my work) eyes. I have no personal issue with Flickr promoting the service they offer through Snapfish to me.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's funny, my paid pro account still has an ad on it.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I really haven't seen any "bashing" going on. People should take a look at other changes that flickr has rolled out (like the profile page revamp, or the Germany/restricted photos policy) if you want to see what an angry mob looks like.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
didn't the introduction of video cause a huge outcry, too?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
My list was illustrative, not exhaustive. Many of the new roll-outs have involved actually "bashing." This discussion seems to just involve a fair number of people who are unhappy with the new service and/or the ad on the home page.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i realize that. i merely asked because i wanted to make sure my memory served me correctly, not because i felt it was unrighteously excluded from the list.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, the fact that Heather hasn't been in the middle of this trying to convince everyone of the One True Flickr Way, as she has done time and time again in the past, was the Eureka! moment for me:
The flickr I joined in December 04 is gone.
Ergo, my analysis is that other business interests are at now play here and Heather has been prevented from doing anything other than toeing the corporate line.
It's clear that money and not the user experience was the driving force behind the Snapfish corporate back-watching/good ole boy network partnership.
This is a textbook example of how a dominant player in a market with very high cost of entry stops innovating and runs on its own inertia, free from competition.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm patiently waiting for the new content that 'is out for translation now and that will be back early next week'.
It's Wednesday afternoon here (and in SF) and I'm really, really hoping that soon I will see the flickr home page without this very eye catching Ad/Home Page Printing Module.
I'm really, really hoping it will no longer look like an Ad to me, so that I don't have to accept that this cornerstone of flickr pro-ness is in fact finally gone.
I would add my name to the list of folks in this thread who feel that they can no longer ignore the direction this site is heading in, and that it very clearly differs from what we signed up for back when we joined.
I really loved (/love) flickr, and have happily welcomed almost all the site changes/feature launches. Over the past year or so things have started to change in a new and rather ugly direction, though, (sponsored groups, Ads, to name just the more offensive) and I just can't shake the feeling that flickr/yahoo plans to/must make more money from the community that has been built.
I really don't want to be sold to the highest bidder.
No matter what cool new features the cash pays for.
So please, if it really is a printing module, make it look and act like one.
And I might hang in there a bit longer until the next blatantly commercial 'module' shows up.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Agreed.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BigBean Sponsored groups have been around for a couple years. And so far, it's only "ad" not "ads." Flickr has put IPMMs on the homepage for years.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well the yellow background shite has been removed from the photopage. The home page as I said before I never visit., and the "Print and Create" bollocks on the organizer page hasn't got in the way as yet.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@jakerome
And they've always been dismissible, right? Difference.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Can't say i ever noticed the group sponsors or the license this image at getty bit on some photo pages before. but this recent hpmm or whatever it's called has suddenly made everything stand out more now. i find i instinctively click the report abuse button now whenever i see someone plugging their stuff for sale on photo pages (for staff to do exactly nothing btw).
it just got taken too far, however light the last straw was.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I print my photos at home and have never used online printing services.
In the past I used local businesses to print my photos. There are actually 10 different businesses within 10 minut drive offering printing/online printing and pick-up option. I live in Montreal.
I decided to have my own experience with online printing and to test Snapfish. Here is my feedback;
I wanted to order 100 4x6 prints, pay using PayPal and pick my order up at local store/location.
- so, it took 15 min. to choose 100 photos and 6 min to transfer them to Snapfish then 6 min to go through the rest of the process.
- 106 photos appeared on Snapfish page
- 11 photos were not visible, only empty squares
- no pick-up option was offered in Canada, only Canada Post delivery
for $4.99
- no PayPal option offered, only payment by credit card
- price of 4x6 print ($0.15) matches local competition ( $0.15- $0.19)
- I cancelled my order
- I keep comments for myself
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
JarekCichy edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
Has gustavo really left?
That's alarming.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I like the Snapfish option. I have bought hundreds of dollars worth of items so far. Very convenient, thanks. Some things are a little quirky, but overall, I like it a lot.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Therrr wrote Has gustavo really left?
That's alarming.
Yes, as his screen name now says:
GustavoG moved to 23hq.com/GustavoG
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just read his profile. Bummer. Major loss to flickr.
Everybody else just wait until January. December is a stressful month.
Making a decision in December is like taking action on some idea that comes in the middle of the night when you can't sleep.
Having your picture printing screwed up probably doesn't help.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I quite like 23hq actually, I've been checking it out for the last few minutes.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Making massive changes in December was probably the wrong way to go and especially since "printing" would be affected.
I could care less about ads and/or advertisements. I don't even see them any more when I log in because my eyes are trained to look past it. I wouldn't see an ad if my life depended on it. lol
But yeah, the printing options for somebody like me who does an awful lot of printing gets noticed. I don't like the Snapfish option, I don't like the local choices and/or lack thereof, I don't like how unstable those local choices are, and I don't like having my photos on every printing site there is and I shouldn't have to when I have Flickr.
This is not a bash thread. This is a constructive criticism thread. I would hope the management team would welcome that because that's how improvements can be made.
I know as a paying customer my thoughts and opinions probably don't mean much but I feel it's important to voice them if I plan to continue to use the service.
I had more photos to print off today for my Christmas Cards. I did so via Sam's Club. I could have picked them up today when I ordered them but at the moment I am snowed in.
PS I am not familiar with these communities and/or who GustavoG is? The only reason I logged onto this forum is because there was no 1-800 number I could call to speak with somebody directly. Then I found out later on there was no such thing.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I could care less about ads and/or advertisements. I don't even see them any more when I log in because my eyes are trained to look past it. I wouldn't see an ad if my life depended on it. lol
That's what they're counting on. Frickin' beanhead MBAs. Must. Make. More. Money!
Just checking for an update on when that advert is going to be removed from my Home page - or when the HPPM is going to include acceptable alternatives to HP/Snapfish which provide this newly-defined "core functionality" of printing to Flickr.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I actually decided to comment on my experience with Snapfish( I posted my feedback earlier). What set me off was a "demo" album I noticed in my Snapfish account with an option to buy it. Is it really only a "demo"? Is "printing module" really only "printing module"? How far will it go.
I tested Snapfish service with an intention to buy prints. I cancelled my order at the last moment because my expectations weren't met.
I wanted to pick-up my prints and pay using PayPal. I am really surprised and dissapointed that these options are not offered in Canada.The price of print generally matches what competition asks, so there is nothing unique that makes Snapfish services stand out and worth using.
In my opinion, of course.
I also sympatise with people who complain about their families not being able to print their photos via Flickr. Flickr! It IS important to them, especially during holiday season.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Snapfish decision was a bad one. It's a downgrade in my opinion. Interface, printing, ordering, cropping, etc. Why would you do this to your customers / users? Why?!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, quite a bad decision. I have been with flickr since 2005 and although I have been a huge fan, I find that these days, members' advice counts for nothing, features that were supposed to have been implemented over two years ago like the slideshow, yes, you know, the one that still doesn't work properly in wordpressdotcom, and now if we want to print through flickr we have one and only one option, snapfish.
Not ads? Well, I can certainly see three occurences of snapfish, one is the cart at the top of the page, one is the AD where they offer me all sorts of snapfish goodies, and one is the "print" option that used to give me several options that all point to snapfish.
Well, I am about to snap MY fish out of flickr and am seriously considering moving to www.23hq.com/claudecf
No doubt it'll take me time, but flickr has just blown it for me. Now I understand the purpose of new homepage that raised such an outcry when it was published. It was meant for ads that you pay to see even though you have a pro account.
edited to clarify
was "I certainly three occurences"
changed to "I can certainly see three occurences"
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
Claudecf edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
Ugh! I've hated Snapfish from the dawn of time. When did Flickr partner up with them?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"When did Flickr partner up with them? "
I imagine a truck full of HP stock was dumped on their (yahoo's) loading docks.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This would be the equivalent of a big company w/support tickets going unanswered and we all know what leads to that.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr staff has responded:
1) The Snapfish deal is here to stay;
2) The IPMM is here to stay, with minor tweaks forthcoming;
3) Flickr promises to improve Snapfish integration & re-enable F&F family printing eventually;
4) You can still order through print partners such as QOOP, Moo & AdoramaPix.
What are the unanswered questions, excluding ones like "why have you betrayed your loyal Flickr customers and plastered ads all over my pro account?"
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakerome -
Like I said before, this ad can be minimized but not dismissed. And there are a fair amount of people who have posted here saying they find it to be an ad and want the option to dismiss it.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jakerome - And for as long as the advert is not dismissible, I will continue to bitch about it. I am *paying* for, among other things, ad-free browsing within Flickr.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
Van in LA edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah, bitch away. But not taking advice and not following requests IS NOT the same thing as ignoring questions, which is what I was responding to.
Honestly, you guys may be right here, this may be Flickr's doom. But if Flickr based their business decisions upon the volume of complaints in the Help Forum, we'd have no video, no people tagging, and profile & activity pages that were permanently stuck in 2005.
I'd like them to be more responsive & open as well-- but complaining here isn't going to change anything at this point.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We've yet to reach the level of responses that accompanied the purple "from Yahoo" text, www.flickr.com/help/forum/107408/
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jake, you're right, which is why Flickr and it's fall has been a big topic of discussion in my circle, that highly coveted 25-35 year old group of urban single adults with lots of disposable income and wide circles of friends themselves. Sites gain popularity via viral means and they lose popularity via viral means.
I'm also strongly considering turning off all search engine indexing on my account. It's the only way I can *directly* reduce the traffic to Flickr, thereby reducing the number of ad clicks or new signups.
I'll continue to pay for a membership until a suitable replacement emerges but I'll no longer sponsor my friends first year on Flickr, as I've been doing.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
An interesting article here, www.graphicartsonline.com/article/389124-HP_Snapfish_Wins...
I like the money quote: "Flickr and Snapfish say they have developed an integrated and intuitive experience that combines Snapfish's printing capabilities with Flickr's online photo organization features, such as Organizr, Sets, and Photo Page. "
That's what they say...
My complaints center on how poorly it is integrated, especially on the Snapfish side. I'm sure they'll find their projections for sale fall far short, and it'll be largely attributable to the subpar integration & user experience on the Snapfish side. It's clear that Snapfish sees Flickr as nothing more than a source for photos, and are essentially ignorant of all the organizational effort Flickr customers put into arranging & tagging things on this website.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakerome wrote An interesting article here www.graphicartsonline.com/article/389124-HP_Snapfish_Wins...
This is an interesting way of putting it:
"As "preferred printing partner" for Flickr's 40 million members, Snapfish now provides purchasing services for printing photo albums, posters, coffee mugs and other advertising specialities are embedded in the Flickr website. [emphasis mine]
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think "advertising specialties" refers to the class of items, such as advertisers will plaster their logo on mugs, frisbees & t-shirts and give them away. The generous interpretation is that it's a term of art. The less generous interpretation is that Snapfish sees this as a great vehicle to advertise their service via the IPMM.
Full disclosure: my grandfather was in the advertising specialties business.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I was going by the grammar of the sentence...
As partner for Flickr's members, Snapfish now provides purchasing services for x y z and other advertising specialites are embedded in the flickr website.
so Snapfish now provides purchasing services and other advertising specialities are embedded.
Dunno. Could just be really bad writing.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi all,
We've rolled out the changes to the printing module on the logged in homepage. The homepage, and all the modules there, are jumping off points for you to explore Flickr or work with your photos. Now that printing on Flickr is available to members all over the globe, the printing module is available to everyone and acts like any other part of the logged in homepage. Per Heather's comment last week, we've changed it so the design and content match the rest of the page.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(just took a look)
i can accept that. it's a big improvement.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I read it as "As "preferred printing partner" for Flickr's 40 million members, Snapfish now provides purchasing services (for printing photo albums, posters, coffee mugs and other advertising specialities) are embedded in the Flickr website.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zack Sheppard You may want to stick in the date of this staff update, so folks know there is new new stuff.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(now if we can just make all the bright pink font a tad smaller)
;-)
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hmmm, i know there's an ad under there, but as long as i don't have to put up with snapfish slogans everyday it's a massive improvement.
i suspect there'll still be a lot of umbrage from people who don't understand why you can't offer them more options though if you were true to your 'make stuff with your photos' statement.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Better. At least when you hide the accursed thing, it stays hidden.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's much better.
It's a real shame you didn't just start out with that. I suspect there would have been a lot less grief over it.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jakerome - Nowhere have I predicted Flickr's doom. I'm simply asking for what I was promised. No advertisements with paid Pro account.
But if Flickr based their business decisions upon the volume of complaints in the Help Forum, we'd have no video, no people tagging, and profile & activity pages that were permanently stuck in 2005.
Oh, but I remember many many improvements to Flickr directly based on feedback in this very forum - so, apparently, Flickr does base *some* of their business' strategic planning on member feedback here.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks, I appreciate that, Flickr.
I'm still keeping an eye out for a replacement Flickr until Heather's carefully worded response that opens the door for ads in greater places is officially clarified to not mean what some have parsed it to mean.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Where are all these people now that flickr needs their support:
www.flickr.com/groups/hp_print/discuss/72157604899760489/
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh, that link provided an excerpt from the Snapfish T&C...it sounded too ridiculous to be true. Except, that it is. From VII Copyright
"When you use the Service, you become a participant in an online community of people who enjoy photography. In order for Snapfish to make your photos available to you and your invitees, as well as to use images to offer you a special variety of online services, Snapfish needs the rights to make use of all Content on the Service, in accordance with and subject to these Terms. Accordingly, as a condition to your Membership, you hereby grant Snapfish a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to copy, display, modify, transmit, make derivative works of, and distribute your Content, solely for providing or improving the Service."
So in order to use the Flickr printing option, of Snapfish, whereby Flickr users need to create a Snapfish account and are thereby users of the Snapfish service, they agree to those T&C?
I wonder how many people have read that bit. Even if I like Snapfish print quality I wouldn't use the service because of that T&C.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's the usual dense legal-speak, but it's basically referring to all functions that you need them to perform. They don't want to get sued by you for copyright infringement because they printed out a book that you ordered. Yahoo and Flickr have similar terms, in fact.
What they need, and maybe it's there but you just excerpted the top part, is something to the effect of "when you leave or cancel your Snapfish membership, this license is voided."
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I couldn't see anything that indicated the license being voided when membership is dropped.
Legalese is common for all these providers, but doing a comparison to other services I've used for printing, none have clauses about rights being granted to the print provider like that. It seems excessive.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It does, but again, Flickr has a similar clause. Maybe Snapfish is making an [admittedly undocumented] assumption that if you remove your content from their site, there's not much they can do with an empty folder.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's Qoop's, for example (and in some ways even further-reaching):
"You hereby grant to QOOP a worldwide, transferable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, right and license to use such Content, in all media existing now or created in the future, as QOOP feels appropriate in its sole discretion, to allow you (and anyone you authorize or allow) to deploy the QOOP Services to create, manufacture and purchase Products for so long as you maintain a Content QOOP LINQ to QOOP Services, house your Content in the QOOP Content database, or remain a member of QOOP. QOOP may sublicense the rights granted to it in this Section to a third party subcontractor where QOOP deems it necessary or advisable to facilitate QOOP Services. We reserve the right to excerpt your Content and make minor modifications to the Content for technical reasons and for marketing and sales materials."
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not sure you have to become a member of snapfish to get prints printed; the right to copy, etc. is given solely for providing you the service. Again, though, I'm not sure you have to become a "Member" just to avail yourself of their printing.
I haven't followed the links for printing, so I have no clue what, if any, terms or conditions apply. Remember (or not, if you don't know) that snapfish is an online storage site that competes with flickr for customers. Although it's "free" (I believe), snapfish requires expenditures on their site, if I understand their customer agreement.
Everybody has to make money. You can't have a truly free site for online storage. Yahoo has to make money off flickr. The problem is that Yahoo has been extraordinarily clumsy about connecting snapfish to its flickr pages so that members use snapfish for prints by default. Yahoo wants it to stand out, and Yahoo wants us to use it. So they put an ad on our pages, denied it's an ad, and promised more ads to come.
Flickr still gets all the eyeballs. My American Photo came today, and it has a spread on flickr photographers. The headline is "Why are ad agencies looking for photo talent on Flicrk? Because they're finding a freshness you usually can't get with stock photograhpy." The article mentions photographers on flickr by name and tells how they came to be licensing their work to big corporations because talent scouts are scouting flickr. I'm not seeing articles like that about snapfish, 23hq, picassa, or smugmug. At the moment, flickr has the buzz.
Yahoo is going to monetize that for all it's worth. Terms and conditions are subject to change without notice. All terms are defined by George Orwell or Lewis Carroll, at the sole discretion of the service provider, as the case may be and without limitation. Not sold in stores. Limited time offer. All problems are as is, with all faults, and without warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. All solutions are subject to precipitation; avoid supersaturation.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Civilized: my experience with Snapfish, and the cause of much of the complaints here is, you HAVE to sign up for Snapfish in order to use it. You can't upload images for printing without becoming a member. They create gallery/folders of your images for the printing process, and thus require a login for those spaces.
Regardless, the terms seem to be for anyone that uses their services, and only refers to the services a person asks them to perform.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
picsbymac That licence is very similar to the licence that you have granted flickr. It is one of the least objectionable licences I have seen on the web (but that is praising with faint damns).
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I singed up for an account with SmugMug in order to make printing painless, intuitive and hassle free. Thanks Flickr! I would never have made the effort otherwise.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Snapfish a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to copy, display, modify, transmit, make derivative works of, and distribute your Content, solely for providing or improving the Service."
They are as evil as the mothership, HP -- I would advise against using this service completely. They have unethical employment practices and have a questionable (putting it mildly) grasp of copyright law. These people are doing nothing but harming flickr's good name.
My advice: find an alternative to snapfish/hp
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rick: you may want to read up on the terms of the site you're standing in:
"you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available."
It's missing the "derivitive works" and "distribute" bits, but then Flickr doesn't make calendars and notecards and ship them worldwide.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@The Searcher -- the "derivative" and "distribute" bits are pretty important. I find yahoo's less evil.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zack Sheppard
re new changes to the Print Module
Thanks for making it look like a Print Module.
I know it still acts/links the same way, but I don't feel like I'm looking at an Ad on my Home page anymore, which is better.
As Brenda said, it's really too bad it didn't look like that from the start.
Too, too bad.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As Brenda said, it's really too bad it didn't look like that from the start.
Or, failing that, if they had acknowledged the mistake and worked to fix it, explicitly reaffirming the commitment to ad-free browsing and sharing for pro members.
Seriously, there would have been absolutely no shame saying "oops, we made a mistake, and the printing module looks like an ad. Sorry about that, we will fix it as soon as possible, which will take a while since we have to redesign, translate and deploy." It would have been the adult and responsible thing to do.
But no, they chose to go the way of denial and subterfuge, and then undermine the idea itself of "ad-free browsing and sharing" by limiting it to just the photo pages.
To staff: that is still an outstanding issue that requires clarification. Was that sloppy wording, or is "ad-free" indeed limited to just photo.gne pages?
It's been eight days since that statement, and since my first query about its meaning.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rick: yes they are. But again, that's because Snapfish's services are ABOUT derivatives and distribution. They can't very well print your photo on a mug and pop it into the UPS truck without those abilities.
If you feel they're printing your photos onto someone ELSE'S mug, well aside from that being silly, you're welcome not to use them.
However I'm willing to bet you'll find similar legal boilerplate most places where you choose to print your mugs and calendars. And even if not, it's still a straw man. Complaining about the quality of their service, is quite a bit more tangible, than the fear of family photos nefariously printed on black market calendars for secret profit.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
1. Thanks for the changes to the module, Flickr. It now looks like a core, vital functionality with a not-so blatant ad copy.
2. But to second GG's question: has Flickr reneged on its promise of ad-free browsing and sharing? Does ad-free only apply to the photopages?
3. Can you tell Snapfish to improve their printing? And the not-so seamless Flickr experience they provide?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm going to third GustavoG's (repeated) question:
Has "ad-free browsing and sharing" truly been redefined to apply only to photo pages?
If so:
1. When did this happen?
2. Why does the upgrade page not make this clear?
3. How were customers supposed to know that the "ad-free browsing" they were purchasing referred only to browsing photo pages?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The redesign without the grey box looks much better. Thanks very much!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i fourth GustavoG's question. has "ad-free browsing and sharing" truly been redefined to apply only to photo.gne pages, or was that merely a very poorly worded response?
i realize my measely 25 bucks doesn't matter to you folks, but it matters to me, and that sole unanswered question will pretty much make my decision for me whether to renew my pro account, or buy myself something nice for christmas.
like photo paper!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
*pow-wow*
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@rickharris: I find yahoo's [TOS] less evil.
Oh, and there was a firestorm when that TOS took precedence over the Ludicorp one.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Also, make sure you empty your cart when you ditch an order, otherwise you can look forward to getting this reminder from The Snap™,
Dear Jacob,
We've noticed that you still have items in your shopping cart. We want to help you complete your order before your cart expires so you can enjoy and share the things you've created.
To finish shopping and check out, just go to: www.shutterfly.com/order/cart.jsp?cid=xxxxxxx
(You may need to sign in to view your shopping cart.)
Your satisfaction is our number one priority. If for any reason you are not happy with the quality of your order, please contact us within 30 days of purchase for a free reprint of your order or your money back.
If you have questions about our products or services, we want to hear from you. Check out our Help Center, the fastest and easiest way to find answers.
You can also contact our customer service department. They're ready and waiting to help:
Email: customerservice@cs.shutterfly.com
Phone: 1-888-225-7159
Monday - Friday: 6am - 5pm Pacific Time
Saturday - Sunday: 8:30am - 5pm Pacific Time
Sincerely,
Your friends at Shutterfly
FYI, they now prominently point out that you can NOW PRINT AT TARGET!!!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That is Shutterfly, though.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Snapfish is HORRIBLE!!! Why the change was made I have no idea. We should be able to CHOSE where we want to order our pictures from not be forced. They "offer" the ability to pick up at a "local" location yet they don't have ANY options for Orlando, FL? Seems odd. Overpriced shipping is outrageous. Hopefully Flickr will reconsider the change to use them....there has GOT to be something better out there!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Why the change was made I have no idea."
According to this thread it was apparently to create a single unified print option that works internationally, as opposed to the previous U.S.-only system they replaced.
And there's nothing stopping you from using whichever printer you want. It's just not Flickr's responsibility to build an interface to connect to all of them. I'm a big fan of Ritzpix.com, since there's plenty of Ritz and WolfPhoto shops in my area. Imagekind.com is great for higher-end printing. But there are hundreds of other options available on the interwebs.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have searched through many of the forums and can't seem to find many other options (of quality)....the main frustration is with the company and their lack of customer support. Three hours of my life wasted due to tech problems...eh. Keep in mind it is mainly frustration speaking at the moment but that experience did leave a sour taste in my mouth--for sure!!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now that a agreeable compromise has been reached, I would like to say thank you. I am much happier with this arrangement in that I no longer have to see the ad in question.
I also need to say that I am relieved this has been done as it tells me there is still at least a glimmer of hope that Flickr listens to its users.
I am hoping that should any issues arise in the future (which I sincerely hope they do not, but who can tell), there will be a little bit more by way of ongoing communication - which can do so much to smoothe ruffled feathers. It's no fun to have to jump up and down, make a fuss and generally get annoyed when it seems no one is listening.
So again, thank you for the compromise, it's appreciated.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kevanvorst: "I have searched through many of the forums and can't seem to find many other options..."
..A web-search for "online photo printing services" returns over 85,000,000 results
..I suspect there's an option among those 85 million to suit your needs
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For the last 30 years I've used Colab for any real printing.
www.onevisionimaging.com
Mostly I just stick a CD through the door as I drive past in the morning, but you can upload to your account using FTP. They don't crop the heads and feet off people, or the wings off butterflies, and you can drop in a sample of material of a dress or soft furnishing and they'll colour match to that. But they ain't a cheap 30 minutes collection service, example snapfish 6x4 9p, Colab 6x4 73p.
Personally at 9p a print I'd not expect any quality at all.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Please bring Yahoo Photos back. The printing and organizing was so easy.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
POSITIVE this is a giant FAIL in the grand scheme of things. I absolutely detest having to use Snapfish. Been trying for THREE DAYS to retrieve my password for that craptastic service. Sending them to Target was easy, convenient (for the days I wasn't around my external drives at home where I keep my original pics) and fast. Did I mention EASY?! Now I have to remember two different passwords, one of which I can't seem to retrieve and I am getting EXTREMELY frustrated. I rarely complain about change, but this is pretty much a bad/poor change. And to think, all I had wanted to do was print out a couple of things while I was away from home. Something I had done a lot in the past. How discouraging!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
has "ad-free browsing and sharing" truly been redefined to apply only to photo.gne pages, or was that merely a very poorly worded response?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Serious issues with quality of service from snapfish - items didn't ship on time; items have not arrived in the specified time after shipping; although the requested shipping refund was processed, they have not replied to my enquiry. And I still haven't received my items which should have arrived around dec 7 according to the original order. Is Flickr documenting and addressing the genuine issues (if they can find them amid all the griping...)?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think I like this new feature. I don't like that I have to save my photos on snapfish too and I had to create a whole new account there just to print. I don't want to have multiple accounts. I also don't like that there's size restrictions on snapfish. I have several 5x5 photos that I can't even print out now. I think before there was an option to print 5x5. I also don't like that there's no pick up at Target. Please adjust the new printing feature!
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If this is a correct quote:
"Snapfish a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to copy, display, modify, transmit, make derivative works of, and distribute your Content, solely for providing or improving the Service."
then I would contrast that with the grant of permission we give Yahoo:
... you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:
a. ***
b. With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.
c. ***
The contrast for me is that the grant to Yahoo expires when we remove the content and that Snapfish gets to make derivative works; my _guess_ is that they may use submitted photos in ads for Snapfish, but I don't know that. When you remove your content, Snapfish doesn't want to have to modify their ads by removing your photos from them. This would conflict with some CC license, so I'm not sure this is what the purpose is, and I have no way of knowing if they show photos in their ads for the service. I know other services that make this use explicit in their grant to themselves of their license.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How do you get adverts from "solely for providing or improving the Service"?
Certainly you could ask them, but I would think their cards and calendars would be what they're referring to with "derivative works". Like other sites, they did leave off the "when you terminate the service" bit, and that's something they could probably add to keep the paranoia at bay.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How is Snapfish going to use my photos for "improving their service"?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In ads and promotions.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Dollars to donuts that it's for things like doing color correction or using photos to test new color processes in house.
But I'm just guessing; why not ask Snapfish? They're on Flickr somewhere.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, first of all I have to say that I'm displeased and rather annoyed - but not surprised - how badly Flickr has handled the introduction and implementation of Snapfish as their preferred business partner. Especially the placement of the ad (and yes, it is an ad, no matter how you call it) is in contradiction of their ToS regarding Pro membership.
But this is not the worst case, this is just a further step down on a slippery slope Flickr is on for quite a while now. Almost every new "feature" only serves one purpose: change for changes sake in order to show how "innovative" they are: the new home page, the totally cluttred and unusable "recent activity" (I'm still missing comments on a regular basis because it is so complicated to keep track of them), the messed-up profile page, the totally useless stats (without all-time referrers it is plain and simply worthless)....
But what bugs most is the overall unprofessinal attitude of Flickr staff to address any just complaints in a respectful matter. On the other hand, I could care less since I've given up hope in their abilities a long time ago.
However, that being said, now to Snapish itself. I have just today received my order of 50 free 10x15 prints (that's metric, I'm in Germany). I placed the order on Sunday, so they had 2 business days for printing and sending them out via German Postal Service. We have no pick-up option at all over here, which is fine for me. The quality of the prints is surprisingly good. The colours are matching exactly my expectations as I see them on my computer screen. Only a bunch of photos have been automatically cropped because they didn't fit the 10x15 format. But this is okay since I chose that option precisely so. During the ordering process Snapfish informed me that some photos didn't match and offerd me to choose either to get them cropped automatically or to preserve my original formats which would result partly in smaller pictures with white frames on these prints.
This is the second time I've ever used an online printing service. Usually I make a CD from my own pics and go to a local printing studio. I have to say therefore that Snapfish did a good job. For a print that costs € 0.09 each, the result is really okay. They're printing on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper Supreme, so I can reasonably expect them to last as long as any other photo prints I have.
Oh, and one last remark to Snapfish's ToS: in the German version I do not have any wording equivalent to the "granting royalty free rights etc." . Basically this is because overe here, under a legal system based on civil law, we don't need such explicit and detailed ToS. When I place an order to print out my photos, it is logical and implicitly clear that the company is entitled to do whatever is necessary with my data sets in order to fulfill my order. No need to agree to any specific legal terms. They are only stating that they are operating under German law. That's all it needs over here.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm giving Snapfish a whirl as we speak.
First impression: UI isn't as nice as Photobox.co.uk
Second impression: They take longer to process and ship than Photobox.co.uk.
I'll await arrival of the prints for third and final impressions.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I need to make some photocards for my clients.
I decided to see again if I could use snapfish, as some of the photos I want to use are already on flickr.
After spending half an hour transferring photos and composing my card the total for 24 5x7 folded greetings cards came to CAD 78.00 plus taxes.
Shipping (there is no pick-up available) is by Canada post (5-7 business days) and will add $6.99.
Snapfish total: $95.19
Even with the special flickr discount coupon it comes to $82.08
Using my local photo lab's online service:
A 12 pack of 5"x7" Folded Greeting Cards will cost me CAD19.99
As I can pick up locally, the Local Lab total for 24 cards (incl taxes) comes to $44.78
Why would I pay DOUBLE for snapfish prints when I still have to upload the photos to their site from flickr?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't know, why would you pay double? Is something forcing you to use a service you don't want, or pay a price you didn't agree to?
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think the point is that Flickr's chosen partner is not providing a good vlue for their customers in this case. That leads naturally to the question of Why did Flickr partner with Snapfish, and why didn't they work to secure better pricing and a more seamless experience for Flickr members.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well from a single point of perspective, that's valid. But if you include the full purpose of the choice, which was to expand printing services outside of just the U.S. market, maybe the trade-off of price makes more sense.
I know many printing sites/stores that charge considerably more than Snapfish, so "value" is in this case relative. Just because Flickr puts a button on the site, doesn't mean we should suppress our personal ability and right to shop around and make our own consumer choices.
I didn't use the button before, because the basic printing options were in my opinion crappy.
So nothing has really changed, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That leads naturally to the question of Why did Flickr partner with Snapfish
If you lived outside of the US, the answer to that question would probably be obvious. And if Flickr now addressed the 'allow others to print my photos' problem, they will probably make the vast majority of their users happy.
[Disclaimer: I'm fussy about my prints, I likely won't use Snapfish, but then, I'm almost certainly not a 'typical Flickr user']
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That leads naturally to the question of Why did Flickr partner with Snapfish and why didn't they work to secure better pricing and a more seamless experience for Flickr members.
Because HP probably told them - all or nothing, and Yahoo! was probably salivating over their percentage of sales. Disgusting. For these reasons, I will never use Snapfish and I will deride and denigrate Yahoo! and HP for it.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You can still print with QOOP from your flickr images...we're running a 20% off sale through the end of the year and we're recently received better rates from FedEx for air shipments....
You can also set up a QOOP Store on QOOP.com to sell your stuff...it's free...
Set up a photo store on QOOP to sell your photos:
www.qoop.com/direct_upload/directUpload.php
Starting Printing with QOOP:
www.qoop.com/photobooks/flickr_user/flickr_start.php
QOOP in the flickr App Garden:
www.flickr.com/services/apps/1141/
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
PLEASE fix the "allow others to print my photos" issue! It is the only reason I use FLICKR and pay for the pro account. We have been sharing photos with other parents for our kids sports teams for years and it has worked so well in the past.
Posted 30 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Agreed.
BigBean Sponsored groups have been around for a couple years. And so far, it's only "ad" not "ads." Flickr has put IPMMs on the homepage for years.
Therrr wrote 
GustavoG moved to 
Zack Sheppard You may want to stick in the date of this staff update, so folks know there is new new stuff.
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads