|
|
"this seems like punching someone in the face for saying "Hello" or "have a nice day" too many times."
There's nothing wrong with a person saying 'hello' or 'have a nice day'. Getting a computer program to do it on your behalf to random people six times a minute is, however, plain rude.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
great post!
I was one of those victims!
I sent email to the folks at flickr yesterday, because my account suspended for excessive fav!
did everything by hand!
I expect answers!
My sincere thanks
Diego Balinhas
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Looks like you got the "flickr Cabal" :-P
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I too would like to know why. I am not going to fave anyone until I find out... Is this flickr's way of being big daddy here and controlling who has access to explore by using it as a carrot for their perceived good behaviour?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 adameros said: “the"Flickr Cabal"”
What is a "Flickr Cabal"?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How would it be rude? A fav is a fav; there's no comment with it, and it only helps improve the image's positive reception.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Kaptain Kobold Not talking about 'bots. Some of the accounts affected were living, breathing people with active photostreams. These were people who are/were active contributing members of the flickr 'community'.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good point Will, the Flickr Cabal changed it's name to "Flickr Fuzzy Help Bunnies". But you knew that.
So, will the "Flickr Fuzzy Help Bunnies" hold the unauthoritative and unhelpful responses until after Flickr has provided their official response.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To be honest, this issue concerns me a little. I shouldn't have to even wonder if it's possible that Flickr could NIPSA or suspend my account for using the very tools they provide me (and that I pay for).
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There are many hours where I spend my time doing nothing but faving. I can and have faved a hundred or more photos in an hour (or even 30 minutes). I too am putting my faving on hold until I can be assured my account won't be suspended for doing something on flickr that I thought was encouraged.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How is it possible to fave almost five hundred THOUSAND images manually? I'm curious to see how that would be done.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
adameros said: “But you knew that.”
I didn't know it, but thank you for clarifying your meaning. Since I don't know the answers to any of your questions, I'll butt out now.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
did everything by hand!
You have half a million faves and over 4000 contacts, I can't see how many comments you make, I imagine similar, and that number has been achieved in two years.
To view all those streams and fave all those images manually, you would have to sit in front of your computer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which then begs the question, where do you find time to take your own photos?
I seriously doubt your integrity.
Auto scripts and robots are used purely as a means of visiting folk in the hope they reciprocate, there is no sincerity and folk who use such methods are just kidding themselves as to their own popularity, reciprocated comments mean fuck all, it is just eye for an eye commenting.
it would be nice to think that flickr is finally banning the use of such devices.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
Johnny ©ontax edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
Straight from Flickr's FAQ page:
There is no limit on the number of favorites you can have.
www.flickr.com/help/favorites/?search=favorite#17
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
: I wouldn't know about those. But there have definately been 'bots in operation.
: So a fave randomly given by a 'bot should be considered a positive thing because it improves an image's status on Flickr? The English have a word which sums that up - 'Cobblers'.
"did everything by hand!"
499,000 pictures favourited in about 18 months? That's an average (roughly) of one picture every two minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I'm impressed, especially as I think that 18 month figure is an overestimate. I've seen a figure of 800-1000 pictures an hour quoted as a rate at which pictures were favourited. That's impressive if it was done manually. 15 pictures a minute. One every four seconds. All day. Every day. Manually.
Wow.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The English have a word which sums that up - 'Cobblers'.
I prefer Manchester English, Bollocks!
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 i don't think the question has anything to do with fav bots, but some of the people banned were certainly not using a bot. So the question is why are their accounts suspended?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, he had never read out for favorite photos on flickr.
I do not know to use scripts for bookmarking actually did not know existed!
I do not comment on all photos, just bookmark.
I thought so would not SPAM. But it seems that flickr interpreted otherwise.
Let's hope the response from the flickr staff.
and I remember again, there is no limit to bookmarking flickr photos.
I agree with my friend 
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So how have you managed to one picture every two minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. the math makes you a liar unless you can explain otherwise.
I'm interested to know, anything that smooths out my own flickr experience is a bonus as things like work and a life get in the way.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 No, I'm not saying it should be viewed as something positive: I'm saying it's not "plain rude". A fav (whether given by hand or by bot) can not have a negative effect on a photo.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I do not owe explanations to you!
The purpose of the post in the forum was to find solutions!
Reply already sent to flickr!
who does not help not hinder!
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
if anyone, and I mean anyone, bot or by hand, is actually faving that many pics, then suspending their activities is the very least a responsible outfit like Flickr could do for them
I mean, when do they eat?
when do they go to the toilet?
when do they sleep?
when do they.... oh sod this; claiming it was done by hand is the most absurd bollocks I've heard since Gordon Brown said we could carry on spending.................. and spending............. and spending
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Because you can't explain, stop making a fool of yourself with absurd claims here and just wait for flickr to get back to you.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am aware that there have been comment/fav bots. I know for a fact that at least one of those suspended is a living, breathing person who favs by hand. He's fav'd quite a few photos of mine, tho less than others'. I think I've fav'd or commented on 2-3 of his shots...ones that I really like. If he's faving mine in hope of reciprocation, then he's prolly figured out by now that its a fruitless exercise by now. Yet he persists.
What a jerk...I mean really...spreading a little appreciation around like that. It's inhuman.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this place is public!
democracy, you know?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
anything that smooths out my own flickr experience is a bonus as things like work and a life get in the way.
Wow. Yes, by all means less 'smooth out' the flickr experience. Homogenize it. That's what art is all about, right?
Just curious...how is someone, either by hand or otherwise, faving other people's photos roughing up your flickr experience?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
leesure edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
I would think favebots would truly enhance what art's all about.
/s
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 To view all those streams and fave all those images manually, you would have to sit in front of your computer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
Using the 100 faves/hr example From  it's Just a little over 9hrs a day spent only faving.Is it an extreme number? Yes it is but entirely possible.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
MissyV110 Not supporting favbots...but to shut down an account without explanation or even a request to explain the behavior seems ridiculous.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
My goal here is not to discuss and create enemies!
I want to solve the case only!
If as a result, I can no longer bookmarking, bookmarking or stop for a while, no problem!
I just want to go back to enjoy the excellent services of flickr.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If he's faving mine in hope of reciprocation, then he's prolly figured out by now that its a fruitless exercise by now.
A bot would persist, and perhaps he is genuine in this instance.
Just curious...how is someone, either by hand or otherwise, faving other people's photos roughing up your flickr experience?
Did I mention rough?
No, but finding time to use flickr when you don't work infront a computer isn't easy, on this account and my other I have been using flickr since the ludicorp days, and would love to spend more time viewing my contacts work.
There are around 300 and it is too many to watch regularly.
If someone knows a secret that allows me to do this then I wish they would share it.
But no, despite the denials, something smells, flickr wouldn't have stepped in otherwise.
This reminds me of the recent Italian explore manipulation, so much whining by talentless folk who exploited a loop hole that was plugged.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey Diego,
In the time you have taken to respond to people here, you have missed out on faving about 600 images! you better get back to the faving or else your views may slow down!
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If the idea is simply to generate views/faves/comments in return in order to make the pages of Explore, why would anyone bother?
the easiest way is to find a willing 17 yr-old girl to take off most but, and this is important, not all of her clothes and pose for what looks like self-portraits while emo-ing over dead pets, roadkill, little babies, pretty flowers, etc, ad nauseum... adding lengthy peotic whinges about the meaning (or lack of meaning) of their pointless lives also helps
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, will the "Flickr Fuzzy Help Bunnies" hold the unauthoritative and unhelpful responses until after Flickr has provided their official response.
It seems you have absolutely no idea how the Help forum works.
It is a user to user forum, if you want full staff involvement, then email is the way to go.
Though perhaps you knew that and just wanted to whine.
Hopefully Staff will come along and close this pointless thread down
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
PS... Diego... you're not a bad photographer (though you'd be better if you backed off the VIVID button a tad) so why do you want to spend most of your days clicking the fave button?
it's not healthy, son
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Suppose I wrote some code that, somehow, I don't care how, selected 50 recent uploads, displayed them in thumbnails on my computer screen, and presented me with a message asking "Fave all theses photos?" along with a "Yes" button and by clicking it I'd fave them all ... sounds sort of like my group moderation duties ...
Would that count as "doing them by hand?"
Just wondering.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
not so much of the pointless, John... best laugh I've had all day :-)
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
seems to have it right. You fav' every photo and most of the people will look at your stream and return the fav' and comment... this happens a bunch of times and poof, your on explorer... Someone wants attention.
Oh, and , thanks for blocking because I called you out in one of your comments..
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
John, I don't mind help, but the Cabal (or Bunnies) seem to more interested in being sarcastic and abusive than helpful. Further, the Flickr Staff does respond here, often faster than if an e-mail is sent.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well this is an internet forum filled with people who don't get paid to do this.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wil C. Fry What is a "Flickr Cabal"?
There is no Cabal.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They respond to certain questions.
This one won't get an answer, I'd bet on it, and I'm sure a staff member will come along shortly and say pretty much the same.
There is no easy answer, suspending accounts is a private matter and they just wont respond in a public forum in the manner in which you hope,
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lets say people are using bots to fav pictures. Does it matter? Does anyone say, "Damn it, I hate getting favs!"?
I would suggest that Flickr make favs follow the comments setting, so users can set if they only want friends faving, no one faving, or are fine with everyone faving, all this instead of the ham handed approach of suspending accounts.
Let the users decide what they want to get and from who.
I know I look forward to, and am always happy when Diego or Billy or one of the people who fav a lot hit my stream. It usually not more than 5 favs at a time and it puts a smile on my face. A smile that Flickr, last night, wiped off my face.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, pointless...by all means, let's just accept anything flickr staff does. I mean really...it's not like we pay for this service.........wait.
There are many instances where flickr staff has reacted, sometimes by deleting accounts entirely, inappropriately. Simply accepting that what they do s always right, and not questioning what they do to others because it's not done to you is a recipe for ruin.
And no one has yet to explain how someone faving or commenting by hand is damaging anyone's flickr experience.
You wanna shut down the bots, fine...but you'd better make damn sure the accounts you're shutting down are really bots.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
;) :D :D
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's not that fact that those people are getting fav'd. It's that the favor-person is expecting hits back to they can get on Explore. It's Spamming [without selling something].
You must be from Chicago because it seems that you would like it if dead people vote.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
MrDAT edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
BTW, flickr has a setting that disallows commenting too many times within a period of time. If they are so worried about fav bots, why not institute the same restriction rather than suspending accounts?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
John, the Flickr Staff will not comment on individual cases, but as this has happened to several account, this is not an individual case, this is a general question of a) what rule is being violated by faving, and b) how many favs is too many, and c) could they have found a better technical solution like putting limits on the number of favs over a time period like with comments, or d) allowing users to set who can or can not fav images in their stream.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Each person suspended is an individual, so as a mass action these could still be counted as an individual case as they all seem to be suspended for the same reason.
To post reasons in the forum for all accounts would impact on the privacy of each individual, so I imagine for that reason alone they will defer to help by email.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
MrDAT, how is "You must be from Chicago because it seems that you would like it if dead people vote." helpful to this conversation at all? Please take your personal attacks elsewhere.
Further, is the fav made with any comment requesting a fav back or any other service? If someone receives a fav, are they under any obligation to return the favor? Do you have any statistical evidence of pictures entering explore based only on return favs? Lastly, is explore something for amusement or something important enough to suspend or delete accounts over?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's really quite sad what people do to boost their ego's.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
is explore something for amusement or something important enough to suspend or delete accounts over?
It is for amusement, anyone who thinks it reflects their prowess as a photographer is a fool, but it is still important to many people.
Gaming Explore is looked upon harshly for this reason, it gives something that is supposed to be fun an importance it doesn't deserve, and those explore groupies play dirty to get there, spoiling the fun for a lot of folk, and boring the pants off the majority.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
Johnny ©ontax edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
... I repeat the question I mooted earlier
WHY fave so many pics?
Diego has faved around half a million pics... is he going to look at them again, ever?
per-lease
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
John, this seems to be unprecedented mass suspension, many accounts at once shut off. Can you cite any earlier cases of masses of people being suspended for faving too much? If this is the first time, then that speaks of a policy change. Shouldn't users in general know of any such policy change that could get their account suspended? As several other people commented, they find this very worrisome that Flickr would do this, and as customers, I think it is reasonable for us to ask why (in general) such an action was taken.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
said "Further, is the fav made with any comment requesting a fav back or any other service? If someone receives a fav, are they under any obligation to return the favor?"
I guess it's common courtesy to return the favor... I wonder if the violator has done that to all the people that fav'd and commented his photos. Oh wait, he fav's all the photos on flickr. :)
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
GranDadWoof: A counter question, "why not"?
The fav function can be seen two ways, as you such, a book mark tool to go back and look at the pictures later (which I never do), or as a means of simply acknowledging that you like an image (which is how I use it). As flickr, in the rules, has said there is no limit on favs, why suspend accounts for faving?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
MrDAT: So other peoples politeness is a reason to suspend someones account?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
adameros wrote The fav function can be seen two ways, as you such, a book mark tool to go back and look at the pictures later (which I never do), or as a means of simply acknowledging that you like an image (which is how I use it). As flickr, in the rules, has said there is no limit on favs, why suspend accounts for faving? Probably because bot faving gazzillions of images isn't either of those perfectly reasonable things; it's spam. But you're not going to get a straight answer from staff here, and you know it. If your objective is to scream impotently into the void, knock yourself out. If you actually want an answer, take it to help by email.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
5. FLICKR'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Flickr expressly reserves the right to immediately modify, delete content from, suspend or terminate your account and refuse current or future use of any Yahoo! service, including Flickr pro, if Flickr, in its sole discretion believes you have: (i) violated or tried to violate the rights of others; or (ii) acted inconsistently with the spirit or letter of the TOS, the Community Guidelines or these Additional Terms. In such event, your Flickr pro account may be suspended or cancelled immediately in our discretion, all the information and content contained within it deleted permanently and you will not be entitled to any refund of any of the amounts you've paid for such account. Flickr accepts no liability for information or content that is deleted.
Blockquote mine, which I think could also easily refer to the yahoo TOS, which are by default applied when you sign up for flickr, particularly item J which follows
#
interfere with or disrupt the Yahoo! Services or servers or networks connected to the Yahoo! Services, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Yahoo! Services, including using any device, software or routine to bypass our robot exclusion headers
I am still convinced a software routine is being used, and if so it is in direct contravention of the above.
Flickr can check this easily, and I'm that sure they won't confirm this here in public, but it is a good enough reason to implement suspension or even deletion.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
Johnny ©ontax edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
Adameros: Politeness? What? I would expect flickr would acknowledge faving as regular social interaction. However, faving half a million images likely looks like anything BUT regular interaction.
And I still fail to see how it could be done without a bot.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What exactly is an account "suspension?"
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Can use of a program, or "robot" be proven? Was a Captcha used to determine the humanness of the fav maker? How many favs per minute makes a bot?
Further, a fav (basically saying you like an image) counter to the spirit of the TOS?
So far, there has been a lot of hypothetical situations suggested, and one of the people who was suspended shouted down as a liar, without any actually solid proof of lying. I.e., more of the usual mob mentality that pervades the Help Forum.
Can the Flickr Staff please respond?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Social activity is frozen, it's like being blocked by everybody whilst existing comments and faves remain.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A capthca won't be required, Flickr can just review server logs and the timing of faves, I imagine it is being done far faster than any human could manage.
Can flickr staff please close this.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
Johnny ©ontax edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
Flickr Staff, please do not close this until your respond to the original questions. John, please remember, this isn't your thread.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You call this thread pointless, yet stay fully involved in the conversation. Now you're asking Flickr to close the thread. Do you not want us to get a response from Flickr? If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't. Or if you don't like the subject matter, then find a thread with a more valid subject. But let us who care about this topic discuss without trying to get it locked down by staff; it's not helpful.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
boscbo edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
My last reply.
It isn't my thread, but it is pushing real help cases from the top of the thread, and I am guilty by responding.
The help forum is no place for this drivel, some people really do need help.
And just a thought, what the fuck is it to you, have you been suspended?
if no then this isn't your fight either.
Let it die for fucks sake.
(And flickr have no beef with swearing before you get a bee in your bonnet about that too)
I'm out of here.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Again...flickr has a setting that disallows commenting too many times within a period of time. If they are so worried about fav bots, why not institute the same restriction rather than suspending accounts?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So genuine concern about arbitrary account suspensions isn't a "real help case"?
Addressing injustice is a responsibility that should not be relegated only to those affected.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have also had my account suspended for faving too much. I have nearly a quarter of a million faves that I have collected mostly over the past seven months. I don't know how to use a bot to do this, and I wouldn't use one even if I knew how, because I like looking at photos and seeing what camera and settings were used to take the images.
Just to support other mass favers who do this by hand I want to share how I fave. I like the Strobist group www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/ not only because of their creativity but because the people who post there only post one image there per day. These people usually don't post their images to groups with glitter awards so the image pages load faster, this helps me fave quicker especially since I don't have the fastest internet connection.
Since Flickr has a new photo page layout I had to slightly change the way I fave. When the photo page loads I put my cursor over the fave button and click it, then I press the right arrow on my keyboard to go to the next image and then I immediately fave the next image, when ready to go to the next page after seeing what technique they used (for the Strobist group you always need to reveal your lighting setup) I press the right arrow key. I continue until I have faved every image in the group.
Since this is such a popular group, there are around 300 images entered into it per day.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickr has a rule of not posting something you didn't take /photograph yourself,i would think a rule that you can't fave one you haven't seen is equally just. another thing that is annoying are the people who instead of giving the comment code for one group ,they give a list of 20 at a time,very annoying to get 20 different group comments when you only posted to one. multi random faving is just attention seeking behaviour from people desperate to have their shot faved . think we have all seen it before
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I get people who by the time my one photo I'm uploading is visible to *ME* at all have faved mine and several others after. Seriously. If *I* haven't even seen my photo yet, how can anyone honestly have seen it, actually had a feeling about it, and made a conscious decision to fave, and then done the same with 10 other photos? Computer bot or human bot, it's equally disconcerting. I'm sure I'm not the only one made uncomfortable by it.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Who in the hell are you to determine what is/isn't legitimate help issues since you aren't Flickr staff
And just a thought, what is it to you, have you been suspended?
Not all of us commenting were suspended just curious about why/what reason.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Billy Wilson Photography
faving every image in a group,if the rest of the group do the same then that's one sad group in my opinion but hey whatever floats your boat
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"multi random faving is just attention seeking behaviour"
And what is posting pictures online for the world to see?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am actually very sorry that Billy Wilson's account has been suspended or whatever. I know this guy is not using a bot, and he is carefully selecting what he favs. This suspension is just unfair to me.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's photosharing.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lú_ edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
wandalouzy wrote he his carefully selecting what he favs Hardly. He just said he faves everything that gets posted to the Strobist group. It's a good group, but that's still not exactly selective.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 how can faving "every image in the group" (his words) be considered "carefully selecting?"
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wandalouzy
carefully selecting
he just said he faves every photo in the group,that isn't careful it's obsessive
adameros
you obviously don't get the gist of why these accounts were targeted,quite simple if you think about it
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How about this line of thought... Who is hurt by people faving a lot? Anyone?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>I have nearly a quarter of a million faves that I have collected mostly over the past seven months.
The maths is scary. 60s x 60min x 24hrs x 30 days x 7 months / 250,000 favs = 1 fave every minute of every day for 7 months.
If you're not using a bot, then I think Flickr is actually just protecting you from yourself!
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 you obviously don't get the gist of why these accounts were targeted,quite simple if you think about it
What's so "simple" about it?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So now a bunch of you are taking his thought process into consideration when determining what a valid fav is. Why should it matter to any of you? If he's manually fav'ing photos -- which I believe he is, considering he just told us about how he fav's many images quickly, one after the other from the strobist group -- he can have at it. Flickr gives us a button to press should we decide to press it. Flickr also tells us that there is no limit to the number of favs we can have. Yet Flickr still wants to suspend his account.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i refer you to john's post a few minutes back.
yes, flickr says there is no limit to the number of faves you can have. however, it says nothing about how many faves you can add in any (currently undetermined) specific amount of time.
if flickr thinks you are a bot (or are using a bot), and you're actually not, instead of getting mad at flickr for thinking you're a bot, how about just stop doing things that make you look like a bot?
there have been a few times that i've been catching up on commenting on my contacts' works, and got the "slow down, pardner!" warning. instead of getting all pissed off at flickr for thinking i'm a spammer, i just paused, did something else for a few minutes, and eventually went back to what i was doing.
i do agree that perhaps a similar roadblock for the "fav bots" could be put into place to ease the anger of the people that get affected by it. maybe account suspension is a bit harsh, but they also reserve the right to do just that . . . so i can't say i blame them for doing so. sometimes, it takes extreme action to get a point accross.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
phlewte edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
Personally, I'm just saying that I have, personally, been unsettled by the behaviour. I never did anything but block anyone over it, but maybe someone felt even more unsettled than I did. I don't care *why* someone faves. I just don't like to be made uncomfortable by it.
Besides, maybe there were technical issues too.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It would be nice to have a staff member chime in on this soon please.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have the Waaabulance standing by for anyone feeling threatened by being faved.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Ah, yes, the good old Flickr's rights response. Technically, by quoting that part of the TOS, they could ban anyone for doing anything because it's mush and unspecific. How do you define "the spirit of TOS" especially when he's only clicking a button that Flickr themselves has provided for us to push?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Whatever. I'm sure you have your creepy factor too.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lú_ edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
did you read the whole post? the part that says:
interfere with or disrupt the Yahoo! Services or servers or networks connected to the Yahoo! Services, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Yahoo! Services, including using any device, software or routine to bypass our robot exclusion headers
that's not exactly mush and unspecific. it's actually pretty clear.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
phlewte edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
Phlewte
oasis
I don't know (care) what he does in other groups, I just learned things from what he faved in my stream.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Honestly anyone that has issues with their photos being "faved" shouldn't be posting them "publicly"
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i don't have issues with my photos being faved. i do have issues a heightened feeling of annoyance with people faving my photos that haven't even bothered to look at them first.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Did you read my post? I'm arguing under the assumption that this person fav'd by hand, not by bot, especially since he told us how he fav's. It's slightly crazy and very time consuming, sure, but conceivable.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
boscbo edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
One can feel threatened by the frequency with which another faves their photos. Are you serious?
Seems that Flickr banned these accounts because they were suspected of using bots. It seems they are not. So un-ban them. Problem solved.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
phlewte wrote that's not exactly mush and unspecific. it's actually pretty clear. Don't forget that Flickr has an API, so it's perfectly possibly to get automated tools to work against it without needing to bypass anything.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but his behavior makes him appear to be a bot.
this is not much different than the spam prevention feature. "real" people are affected by it all the time (myself included, as i mentioned a few minutes ago). this one just has a more extreme punishment.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
th.omas wrote Seems that Flickr banned these accounts because they were suspected of using bots. [citation needed]
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 very true (i guess, i have no experience with the API at all). i'm just saying that i can't say i blame flickr for putting tools in place (if they have indeed done so and this wasn't some kind of a glitch) to prevent this kind of behavior.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
phlewte edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
"this seems like punching someone in the face for saying "Hello" or "have a nice day" too many times."
Kaptain Kobold Not talking about 'bots. Some of the accounts affected were living, breathing people with active photostreams. These were people who are/were active contributing members of the flickr 'community'.
: I wouldn't know about those. But there have definately been 'bots in operation.
: So a fave randomly given by a 'bot should be considered a positive thing because it improves an image's status on Flickr? The English have a word which sums that up - 'Cobblers'.
MissyV110 Not supporting favbots...but to shut down an account without explanation or even a request to explain the behavior seems ridiculous.
seems to have it right. You fav' every photo and most of the people will look at your stream and return the fav' and comment... this happens a bunch of times and poof, your on explorer... Someone wants attention.
Social activity is frozen, it's like being blocked by everybody whilst existing comments and faves remain.
Billy Wilson Photography 
wandalouzy 
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads