Search the Help Forum
|
[closed] Can Flickr please clarify what rule is being broken?
|
|
This morning I woke to find out several accounts I have friended were suspended, supposedly for excessive Fav'ing.
I know Flickr can not discuss individual cases here, but since several accounts have been affected, I was hoping Flickr to explain the rational, since for the average lay person, this seems like punching someone in the face for saying "Hello" or "have a nice day" too many times.
So, are accounts being suspended for excessive faving, even though the people have their own expansive and active photostreams (i.e., they are valid users, and not just fav machines)? If so, how many favs is too many? What harm does faving do to justify suspending accounts? How is suspending accounts for people being nice not mean spirited?
I'd appreciate it if the"Flickr Cabal" could wait with their unauthoritative and unhelpful answers until the Flickr Staff responds with their official answer.
Posted at 7:21AM, 13 August 2010 PDT
(
permalink
)
Zack Sheppard (staff) edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
(101 to 113 of 113 replies in [closed] Can Flickr please clarify what rule is being broken?)
|
|
But where does the line get drawn though since it's quite possible to do this through the API.
Again If having your photos "faved" DISTURBS you that much then why post them PUBLICLY .
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Preventing excess faving????????? What exactly are they protecting "us" from?
It's just the sort of foolish nannying for which Flickr is notorious.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Ewan wrote 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.
I don't have experience with the API - but I have used darckr in the past and now use fluidr - and in both cases, you get a warning if you fave images "too fast". And "too fast' can mean as few as 10 images in 2 or 3 minutes. Not sure though if this would be the case with any API application...
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lú, you can get a view or a fav before you refresh your own page simply because flickr offers a 'evveryone's uploads' section on everyone's home page. If one of the millions of flickr users happens t refresh at the right time and sees your photo in that section, then they may look at it and, oh the horror, like it enough to fav it. There is a very easy way to stop this behavior...upload your photos as friends and family only. If you want to offer up your photos to be seen by the world, then you run the risk that the world just might look.
Folks, flickr's job shouldn't be to protect us from ourselves. It shouldn't be to limit behavior not contrary to the TOS.
This is just another example of flickr acting before taking the time to find out about the person behind the screenname. I'm just VERY happy they chose to suspend, rather than delete these accounts. I hope this is a trend toward not taking irrevocable actions until they do their due diligence.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wandalouzy
I don't know (care) what he does in other groups, I just learned things from what he faved in my stream.
that would be most of them then,what can you learn from a fave ?
he faves them all so that wouldn't tell you anything
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
nacnud is duncan edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
 More evidence that ~100 faves an hour is very possible so accumulating outrageous numbers of faves in a short period of time is possible WITH tools provided by Flickr themselves.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I'm just VERY happy they chose to suspend, rather than delete these accounts.
True. In the past, that might have been exactly what happened.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh no...one of my contacts just fav'd about 20 of my shots in 2 minutes. Should I thank them for the compliment or warn them of the possible consequences?
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Probably Flickr thought Billy & Diego were bots, and suspended commenting/ faving privileges. Apparently Flickr was in error. Hopefully they restore their faving privileges now that they have vouched that they are, in fact, real people. If they are cut, do they not bleed?
Flickr has made mistakes before. Fortunately, this is one that can be readily rectified.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If this faving thing becomes rampant we are all doomed.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think people are obsessing overmuch on the tools/bots thing. I think Lú_ put it quite nicely when she said: 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'd have thought that it would be the behaviour rather than the mechanism that would be considered objectionable.
Of course, it's all just guesswork, and it's going to stay that way until someone directly affected uses Help by Email, then posts the response.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 thank you, i was just thinking that.
regardless of the reason it was all done, people affected really are going to have to use Help by Email to get their accounts back to normal.
i would be surprised if staff left an answer in this thread. though, of course, it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We can't discuss individual accounts here in the forum but we are communicating directly with the people that aren't able to fav. Since nothing useful can come out of the discussion here, I'm closing this topic down.
Posted 22 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.
(101 to 113 of 113 replies in [closed] Can Flickr please clarify what rule is being broken?)
|
wandalouzy 
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads