— kx [deleted] 6:13pm, 21 November 2011
ok, that is heavier in meaning than I meant it to be, but I like this initiative from Instagram:
There are so many excellent and genuine interactions that take place in the comment feeds on photos, and we want to make sure those conversations aren’t interrupted by spammy comments. Now, when you post the same comment on multiple photos, you will receive a warning (red exclamation mark) indicating that your comment did not post successfully. We’re also filtering for certain words and phrases. (emphasis mine)
the last sentence is appealing. of course, if that happens on flickr, there would be call of censorship (which is not the proper use of the term), but really, the Help Forum may see a new high in idiotic comments.

the first part is nice... and it kills comment-bots, though someone can program one to circle through a number vapid comments. that is harder to do with the interface of Instagram, which is a manual process, so the cut/paste stack just goes one-deep.

I still think that if there is a quota, and thus a sense of gravitas, given to faving, then many issues of lameness on flickr can be improved.

of course, one thing about Yahoo and their approach to matters is that a lack of money is like a lack of hearing.
Viejito Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Viejito (member) 6 years ago
Regarding a quota to faving, I am for limiting the number of faves per minute or per day, but not for a maximum of e.g. 2,500 faves total.
Ben Goff PRO 6 years ago
If you can find a way to block those irritating animated badges and such, great, but you can't write a script to block idiots. Idiots always find a way.
Hyla Levy PRO 6 years ago
I'd want to see examples of what they'd block. I, and lots of others, like saying simple things like "lovely!" and "beautiful!". Will they take issue with that? If one has to make comments of a certain length, there will be a lot fewer comments made. I'm very happy receiving one-word comments if they're positive.
Walt Jabsco PRO 6 years ago
censorship is censorship is censorship
The Blue Boy 6 years ago
Nothing wrong with comments like that if they are heartfelt. It's comments like "great capture!" "nice shot!" that most of us find banal. And if it could correct spelling that would be brillaint*.

* :)
N. Clifford [deleted] 6 years ago
one word comments, to anyone with any interest in improving, or showing their work with a genuine interest is not interested in comments like lovely etc... its pointless... the only people that like it are the people that go harvesting for faves comments and views...
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
Viejito
wrote
I am for limiting the number of faves per minute or per day, but not for a maximum of e.g. 2,500 faves total.
if one is able to print money at will, then money is worthless. naturally. since the currency in a social site such as this one is faving, commenting and competition on Explore, it seems wise for the website to give out a limited supply of it. if the faves are limited, then the comments are not. so then, we can have a new breed of comments like "great capture... I ran out of faves for today, but will come later when replenished... in the mean time, fave mine!"


Shakespeare?
Tea Party slogan that replaces "socialism" with "censorship"?

The Blue Boy wrote
Nothing wrong with comments like that if they are heartfelt.
we need more emoticons in comments then.
This is all very English-language centric, isn't it?

I get plenty of contacts who leave short comments because.... shock horror... they don't speak much English.
N. Clifford [deleted] 6 years ago
Nope, nothing to do with language. I love Non-English comments just much... Google translator is your friend.
DenaIIi PRO 6 years ago
great comment!


one word comments, to anyone with any interest in improving, or showing their work with a genuine interest is not interested in comments like lovely etc... its pointless...

Last time I checked, I wasn't being paid by anyone on here to critique their work. If I think a photo is lovely, I'll say so. If that causes someone to get all butthurt because I didn't take time to novelize every layer and nuance of their photo... whatever. They can pay me or they can sod off.
goneforawander PRO 6 years ago
Google translator is a vague acquaintance:

Me: Joder pichas, tienen tiempo libre demasiado
GT: Fucking pricks, have free time too

I'll give GT 40% for effort.
N. Clifford [deleted] Posted 6 years ago. Edited by N. Clifford (member) 6 years ago
whats it ment to say? because in 5 mins, nearly all on-line translators say the same.
davе PRO 6 years ago
personally i think we should be doubling down on spambots, they have the capacity to be so much better than us mortals:

StevenM_61 PRO 6 years ago
As for comments, if someone cannot speak English, I don't get upset if he makes a brief comment in his native language. I will take "bellissimo" over "nice capture" from someone who's fluent in English.
N. Clifford [deleted] Posted 6 years ago. Edited by N. Clifford (member) 6 years ago
Last time I checked, I wasn't being paid by anyone on here to critique their work. If I think a photo is lovely, I'll say so. If that causes someone to get all butthurt because I didn't take time to novelize every layer and nuance of their photo... whatever. They can pay me or they can sod off.

Awesome... I do not dislike one word comments ... they are just pointless and mean nothing... even simple things like why you like it... i.e. i like the way you composed this... or, great use of DoF... At least there is something to note that you doing right... or great, but try doing this... at least i can see where the image falls down.

After all this is a social networking site... where you are meant to interact...
Ben Goff PRO Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Ben Goff (member) 6 years ago
This is not a social networking site, it's a photo sharing site.

I'm only interested in interacting with the handfull of people on here that I'm familiar with. If someone wants to leave a one-word comment, then fine. I really don't care about comments unless they come from someone I know and who's work and opinions I respect.

I just wish they would get rid of those glittery badges. We don't need no stinkin' badges.
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
Ben Goff wrote
This is not a social networking site, it's a photo sharing site.
the latter is the intent, what it became is the former. while many people upload and share. the very nature of the interestingness algorithm shows that there was a push towards social interaction by the very nature that comments, faves and other social metrics are part of how Explore works.

this is not a bad idea, since page views comes from social interaction, and not so much sharing. one can argue that photos is the currency for social interaction, and for some, to fill-in a social need.
Patrick Costello PRO 6 years ago
I think you just have to expect and allow others to use the site in a way that suits them, and you also have tools to manage your personal experience here.

If people want to load their photos as private and only share with select people, that's fine; you can block those people if they offend your concept of sharing.
If people want to exchange glittery gifs, that's fine; you can delete or block those people if they add unwanted graphics to your pages.
If people want to critique each other's work, that's fine; you can delete or block those people if they add unwanted criticism to your photos.
If people want to just fave or leave short comments, that's fine; you can delete or block those people if you don't appreciate the succinctness of their interaction.
etc
Flet©h 6 years ago
I think you just have to expect and allow others to use the site in a way that suits them, and you also have tools to manage your personal experience here.

It has its limits though. Flickr is blighted by spammers and self promtionalists and a huge part of an individuals experience here is not within their control since its on other people's photos, viewing and interacting.

Think of the "spam" as digital fly postering. Local authorities don't let everybody go round posting adverts for whatever they are selling on every available surface because its antisocial and makes the place look a mess. You could call this censorship, or more rationally you could call it necessary enforcement of rules for the greater good.

Better filtering of spammy comments as introduced by the OP could greatly improve the flickr experience for all in the same way, rather than it just descending into "he who shouts loudest" anarchy.

Remember Myspace? People had lots of control of "their own experience" there.
Hyla Levy PRO Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Hyla Levy (member) 6 years ago
I do not dislike one word comments ... they are just pointless and mean nothing... even simple things like why you like it... i.e. i like the way you composed this... or, great use of DoF... At least there is something to note that you doing right... or great, but try doing this... at least i can see where the image falls down.

You are saying everything should be of the type of comment you want to receive. I would asssume most people are very happy with a simple "love this!" (and I bet you would be too) because it means their image elicited a positive reaction from somebody.

You have to watch out when criticiquing somebody because most people don't want to be critiqued. I'd check people's profiles and see if they specifically say they welcome constructive criticism.
DenaIIi PRO Posted 6 years ago. Edited by DenaIIi (member) 6 years ago
Part of the problem lies in the definition of a 'spammy comment'. To you, me and many others, those glittery gifs and tacky invite badges are a gawd-awful eyesore. To others, they create a sense of community - however measured that sense may be.

Flickr is not a 1-type of person website. Professional photographers and artists may use it... but so do soccer moms, senior citizens and people with a penchant for posting nude selfies.

While an artist may be looking for deep, meaningful and thoughtful critique or flowery verbiage in the comments, your granny isn't. She's delighted when she gets a 'lovely!' or 'great capture!'. Different strokes and all that.

My (public) photos are on display for the world to see and comment on. If I don't like the comment - I remove it. That's it. No big deal. If I don't want a page filled with glittery gifs, I avoid those groups and remove them if they appear. No big deal.

It's hard to determine what is (and what isn't) spam until you actually see it though. A 'great capture' may just be that. Your photo is simply a 'great capture'.

Then again, if there is a "Now come see my shite on Flickrriver" badge attached to that "great capture"...
Patrick Costello PRO 6 years ago
Yes there are limits. And if someone exceeds those limits, there are report abuse channels, including span-o-rama. Now whether Flickr has enough staff to follow up all those reports in a timely fashion is another question, but I don't believe that automated scripts are the panacea.
As eloquently describes, context is everything. If elderly relatives manage to navigate to your photostream and leave a one word comment on all your photos, that may be a joyful thing. If a spammer hits every image in a group pool with the same comment, that's annoying.
I'm in favour of censoring the spammer rather than removing every possible tool that a spammer might use.
Don House 6 years ago
I'm thinking about changing a bunch of my images from private to public,...

but I'm not sure I want people to comment on my privates.
Flet©h 6 years ago
Context and definition, I agree.

But in this instance it is fairly easy to define what constitutes spam, its "comments and faves generated in a systematic fashion with the intention being to attract reciprocal activity on the spammers photos"

People doing this by definition follow fairly repetitive patterns. Patterns that computers are very good a spotting due to their ability to crunch large amounts of data with minimal fuss.

I'm not talking about one word comments, "great captures" or even glittery gifs, of course they could come from a genuine place, I'm talking about the inane pasting of "nice shot" onto 1000 photos a day or systematic faving of every picture in explore. An automated script can detect the context of a comment by understanding what else that user has been doing recently.

Flickr could introduce simple procedures to stop this, procedures that are invisible to 99.9% of members. Report abuse to stop spam is really not a suitable tool in this context as one "great capture" on one photo is not spam but 500 in a day is, users can't detect and report this but they do suffer the effects.

And Flickr do have some precedent for doing this, you can't post an ALL CAPS comment for example.
Viejito 6 years ago
since the currency in a social site such as this one is faving, ...

I do not use faves or comments as currency. I fave pictures I really like, without asking, "Please fave mine, too..." and I comment if something other than "Great capture!" comes to mind.

The reason I said I am for limits on faves per minute and/or per day, is to curtail the favebots and keep faving an individual decision.
Patrick Costello PRO 6 years ago
I don't think the number of people running fave bots necessitates the invocation of hard limits on the fave function. Provided Flickr agrees that the use of such scripts is against the spirit of the site and constitutes abuse, it should be fairly straightforward to spot anyone utilising such a script, reporting them and having the account sanctioned. Indeed there have been examples in the help forum where that scenario has played out and the offender has been prevented from using the fave function any further.
Patrick Costello PRO 6 years ago
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
Viejito wrote
I do not use faves or comments as currency.
you may not do it with the intent of soliciting a reciprocation, but it is a social interaction as much as saying hello at a passer by, or someone near you. saying hello may not have been with the intention of striking a conversation, but that can happen.

to share a photo does not require that someone faves, or comments on, it. this is why Explore was designed to exploit social interaction as a correlated measure to something interesting.
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
Patrick Costello wrote
I don't think the number of people running fave bots necessitates the invocation of hard limits on the fave function.
I agree. my comment was purely to give a weight to faving a photo by making it a "precious resource" rather than as a measure towards avoiding abuse.

conversely, the same effect is not achieved by limiting comments. the filtering from Instragram brings an interesting dynamic to comments, but that is also a different platform, so it is not easily converted to flickr. yet, there is something interesting about it, as flickr suffers from similar "spamming" problems.
free spirit * 6 years ago
I wonder what a utopian flickr world would look like. What would be the topic of discussion threads, or the often hilarious parody of those curious yet annoying glitters and bots? How boring would perfectly technical 'captures' with perfectly acceptable comments be? As in real life, I really appreciate diversity. I don't want to exist in a gated community, but do want the tools to keep the 'undesirables' at bay. Those tools need to be self -manageable. When we have an algorithm defining our likes and dislikes, we are in big trouble
DenaIIi PRO 6 years ago
I wonder what a utopian flickr world would look like.

More boobies and less knobs would be my guess preference.
free spirit * 6 years ago
soon the day will come when we see on flickr: "others who faved 'boobies' ;-)
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
Patrick Costello wrote
I think you just have to expect and allow others to use the site in a way that suits them, and you also have tools to manage your personal experience here.
the genie is out of the bag and the tools are in place, so changing to how people have used the tools is much more difficult at this point. so, I agree with this take. yet, it is interesting to think of how things can be done differently given what has been learned from a site's approach and the user's usage regardless of intent.
Ben Goff PRO 6 years ago
I'm not sure the analogy of faves, views and comments as currency fits. These things are worthless in a monetary sense, and only have as much value as the individual user ascribes to them.

In my case, I ascribe very little value to them unless they come from someone I know.
Flet©h 6 years ago
Its not just bots that are spammy, in fact they are so few and far between to not be a problem. The real issue with flickr not being a rewarding place to hang out is the constant inane pasting of the same comment over and again, purely to get people to visit your stream. If people we restricted to only more meaningful interaction the whole site would be a better place.
goneforawander PRO 6 years ago
Are you concerned about the quantity or quality of your privates?

If you don't want to see the genie then stop rubbing the magic lantern.

A utopian flickr would be a landscape of rolling meadows full of dandelions and mischievous kittens played out before an everlasting hdr sunset, the wit would be sharper than a fully matured old English cheddar.

We can always hang a sign at the front door that states "No riff-raff".
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
Ben Goff wrote
These things are worthless in a monetary sense
currency in terms of a item that is for a transaction. nothing to do with monetary value.

that you ascribe little value to these items is fine, and not uncommon, but you still do a social transaction with them. faves and comments can be made worthless by having no quota to them, but if you go to a stranger's photostream and fave a photo, they may not care, or they will give it all the value in the world — regardless of what value you gave it. thus, a fave and/or comment is a currency for a social transaction with an exchange value that is out of your control.

again, if photosharing was the sole purpose, and no social interaction, then faves and comments are cumbersome in more ways than one.
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago

I mentioned a genie in a bag, not in a magic lantern. I guess a kick is more fitting than a rub.
Patrick Costello PRO 6 years ago
"If people we restricted to only more meaningful interaction the whole site would be a better place. "

For you, I'm sure that's true. Maybe for me too. I gave up on exchanging gifs or posting to forced comment groups fairly early in my Flickr tenure.
But there's many many members who enjoy all that. Why should they be denied just to make you and me feel better about the site?
Viejito Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Viejito (member) 6 years ago
Why should they be denied just to make you and me feel better about the site?

You got a point there. I have seen people making extremely complimentary comments about all their contacts' shots, most of which I considered awful — e.g. a person in full, cut off at the ankles but with lots of gray sky above them, or the top of their head cut off and lots of empty space at their feet... — but if it helps them through the day, more power to them...
Flet©h Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Flet©h (member) 6 years ago
Patrick Costello wrote

For you, I'm sure that's true. Maybe for me too. I gave up on exchanging gifs or posting to forced comment groups fairly early in my Flickr tenure.
But there's many many members who enjoy all that. Why should they be denied just to make you and me feel better about the site?
I'm not suggesting that anybody should be denied anything. If they want to post sparkly gifs or inane comments then that's their look out. I am suggesting they should be prevented from doing the same thing over and over again repeating the same comment, pasting the same gif code, hundreds of time an hour. It adds nothing to the site, its virtual litter, virtual fly posting and it allows a small minority of people to fuck it up for everyone else.
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago

the crux of sites, with poor design for social interaction, is the balance of freedom for the site to evolve as the people like it to be — one good thing about how flickr evolved — and another is how to put tools in place for people to make it operate as one wishes (within reason).

allowing the tacky stuff — from vapid comments to gifamania — is to also allow other users to control what they consider spam. for example, disabling images (or even links) in comments. I took a more drastic measure by disabling comments altogether, and I am fine with that, but others see it as too draconian.

as for fighting bots with some sort of Artificial Intelligence, that can have some pleasing results, but as a practical matter, it is like putting lipstick on a pig — the site's architecture for displaying photos and layouts is still stuck in 2005 (or the wish list from that year).
Viejito Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Viejito (member) 6 years ago
I took a more drastic measure by disabling comments altogether, and I am fine with that, but others see it as too draconian.

It may be draconian, but it has the advantage of making the paranoid think you have blocked them...;-)
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago

just because someone is paranoid about my disabling of comments, it does not mean that I am not out to block them.
photo208cam PRO 6 years ago
Personally I can't say why I like Flickr really.

It is practical and relatively inexpensive as a back-up.

I socialize but in small groups mostly.

Most of my traffic comes from outside Flickr.

I have few contacts, but those I have, I seem to understand (from a few pictures or words) part of their life. Good times and bad times (that we all go through), very human, that connection is what I like most, I guess. Often it is not the quality of the image or the technique, it is something personal about life.

People that play a game they loose that aspect, the sense of listening to others, learning.

But really I feel no appetite to judge others.

I have had hardly any problems with spam, or inappropriate comments, or porn. In reverse I have seen some good artists have their accounts restrained or delete, not often ( and mostly several years ago when flickr did not allow for photo-montage or would delete accounts with minimal "nudity" without any prior notice).

Mostly I find it is a great learning experience here.
Mr Nessy 6 years ago
I don't tend to get that many annoying comments or flashy banners, so I don't really see it as a problem. It's mildly annoying on other people's pictures, but so are obtrusive watermarks.
spyle2011 6 years ago
I plead guilty to the crime of posting "lovely" and "Like the patterns" type comments. Also guilty of the high crime of "nice shot". Whenever I get a brief comment I'm touched because, hey, someone put in the effort to let me know my photo caught their eye. And that's what my intention is when I post that kind of comment on someone's photo. I wouldn't call one word or brief comments "worthless" or "pointless". And I don't quite see why a comment from a stranger wouldn't be as meaningful as a comment from someone I know. Can only friends of an artist enter an art museum and make comments on that artist's work?
Ollievision™ 6 years ago
I don't think there's any need for Flickr to censor comments because we don't have a problem with it generally.

Only people who add their photos to 50 different groups chasing comments get totally spammed! I only add mine to relevant groups and never chase comments or faves. It's very rare that I need to delete flashy banners!

If the member wants to post to 50 different groups then it's up to them to manually remove unwanted comments.

Also, I usually make only one/two word comments because that's what I want to say. I don't comment on many photos as I don't have time. It's not necessary to critique every photo...
Kaptain Kobold 6 years ago
spyle2011 said:
Whenever I get a brief comment I'm touched because, hey, someone put in the effort to let me know my photo caught their eye.
Or they used a script to post the same comment to a hundred or so pictures at the same time. They possibly didn't even look at your picture at all.
Fan-T 6 years ago
Great Capture!


Commented with Flickr comment.
Muzzlehatch PRO Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Muzzlehatch (member) 6 years ago
I have nothing against lazy, selfish twats, but when they automate their lazy selfishness with flickr comment, it moves from being an irritant to being a disgrace.

Can we all agree to just block the idiots who use flickr comment or any other such stupid, evil method of automating their useless crap?
— kx [deleted] 6 years ago
spyle2011 wrote
Can only friends of an artist enter an art museum and make comments on that artist's work?
that is not the same equivalence, is it?

the problem with short comments, as pointed above, is that they can be easily confused with robotic comments.

a stranger's comments should have lesser weight than a known friend, as the intentions are not known, and the bias cannot be removed. this does not mean that the comment from a friend is valid... you know your friends, so you can adjust accordingly. you cannot do that with a stranger. that said, depending on how the stranger words it, their comment can be just fine.
Dörnveek 6 years ago
"We’re also filtering for certain words and phrases. (emphasis mine)"

so i can still spam in german, then. awesome.
falconn67 PRO 6 years ago
If Flickr were going to put in limits for comments/favs, why not prohibit groups that require comments? How about limiting each user to being shown in the All Mighty Explwhore each week/month? Half of that crap is just trying to game the system to get there anyway.

I was going to give a specific example of a piece of crap photo that made Explore (ok, 10% photo, 90% overprocessing) but I decided that was too finger-pointy.
alohadave 6 years ago
It has its limits though. Flickr is blighted by spammers and self promtionalists and a huge part of an individuals experience here is not within their control since its on other people's photos, viewing and interacting.

Where do you draw the line with self promotion. I could put my pictures on a billion different webhosts, but I use Flickr because this is where the people are. Of course I want to promote my own pictures, just like everyone else.
sfroehlich1121 6 years ago
I agree completely. Repeated posts with the same text should be limited (to prevent hopeless group promotion), and the number of faves should be similarly limited to something like 5/day.

What Yahoo! could do is make these default options you could disable (but enforce in groups and in comments on your photostream).

Ovbiously, they would need parallel ways of calculating interestingness, but it sounds pretty doable.

Where is the innovation around here, honestly?
falconn67 PRO 6 years ago
Where is the innovation around here, honestly?


They are working on a way to deliver donuts via the internetz
Pacdog PRO 6 years ago
Donuts?

I'm there!!
Pacdog PRO 6 years ago
personne.de.chandigarh PRO Posted 6 years ago. Edited by personne.de.chandigarh (member) 6 years ago

"...that most of us find banal..."
Well, those kind of comments aren't exactly bricks being hurled at one.

I think it'd be just a teeny bit arrogant to suggest how the rest of the world should cater to our pleasure in even leaving a polite and short remark on one of our photos.

It's just a way of interacting. If we don't like that sort of comment, there's a delete button provided against each comment, why not simply use it?
webshows 5 years ago
Instagram has it limits, but todays announcement, the sale for 1 Billion made it clear that 30 million subscribers like the app. Instagram's app is simple and clean, and it serves one purpose of uploading photos to other social media sites.
I say it's brilliant.
— kx [deleted] 5 years ago
webshows wrote
made it clear that 30 million subscribers like the app
not sure how the sale relates to people who have downloaded the app.

active users is a completely different matter... and those numbers tend to be secret, it seems, or further disguised (cf. G+ stats).
Viejito 5 years ago
For those who have not been swept up in the instagram craze and wonder if they will have to buy a cheap plastic camera to take cool pictures, a funny video...
Groups Beta