Help / The Help Forum

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

Hot Topics

[Test] New presentation & layout when clicking on tag
Latest: 3 hours ago

 

Current Discussion

Camera and setting info not displaying
Latest: 40 seconds ago
Sharing pix
Latest: 81 seconds ago
[acknowledged] Flickr has been very SLOW.
Latest: 4 minutes ago
Aperture upload
Latest: 24 minutes ago
church website
Latest: 25 minutes ago
[investigating] It's back. Flickr Upload Via Lightroom not working, semicolon expected
Latest: 30 minutes ago
Pages not loading - waiting for c2.staticflickr.com
Latest: 44 minutes ago
Safety Level Not Set
Latest: 79 minutes ago
A Group Aimed for Insult
Latest: 2 hours ago
Photo Header Not Showing when Album Embeded
Latest: 2 hours ago
[staff reply] Yahoo press release of 2 February 2016 - Flickr's status?
Latest: 3 hours ago
Why are groups loading so slowly?
Latest: 5 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Closed] Account closed, images disappeared without warning - do Flickr.com ever explain?

Did Wikipedia censor my last Flickr account? says:

I asked if Flickr.com ever explain to people why there accounts had been shut down and erazed without warning and the topic was closed by Flickr staff without an answer.

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/102783/

Thank you to all that answered ... but no, it was not hacked and images deleted, nor do I use public PCs.

• The whole account and all images had just disappeared when I logged on, forcing me to make another one.

I keep writing polite emails to the Flickr helpdesk but, despite promising a reply, they have not written back either. It has been one week now.

• The question I am asking is

"Do Flickr.com EVER respond, explaining why they deleted images and closed accounts ... or do they just ignore people until they die off?"

The images were not copyright violations not obscene.

• They were cartoons critical of admin and other abuses on the Wikipedia.

I was just wondering if they were censored or something and why? I put work into making them. Others liked them. They made raised serious issues.

I would just like to know what and why.
Posted at 12:10AM, 12 August 2009 PST ( permalink )
Zack Sheppard (staff) edited this topic 79 months ago.

view photos

Did Wikipedia censor my last Flickr account? says:

BTW ... it was never flagged as being "unsafe" or anything prior to disappearing.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

what kind of photos did you have in your account?

did you have only photos that you took yourself?

did you have anything considered "contentious" ?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/102783/#reply668693
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

yeah, i did read that. but it does not really give answers.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

Well - the answer is that Flickr won't discuss individual accounts in a public forum - no matter how mant times the OP copies and pastes the question into a new thread.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

Go here, www.flickr.com/help/with/other/ and click "Help by Email."
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

BTW Flickr staff, I get why the Help by Email link is a little hidden, but there should at least be a URL to open Help by URL directly. I can't imagine the frustration of some people go through the general Get Help link, post to the forum, then get sent back to the same page & re-routed to the Help Forum again. It would make everyone's lives easier if there were a direct "Help by Email" link, perhaps even one for each general question.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

Well - the answer is that Flickr won't discuss individual accounts in a public forum - no matter how mant times the OP copies and pastes the question into a new thread.

i know. i was just asking the question to the OP. no to staff.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

BTW ... it was never flagged as being "unsafe" or anything prior to disappearing.

maybe your content was "safe", but still forbidden, e.g. images or photos taken from some other websites.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

The problem is that whatever we members suggest is mere speculation. We don't even know if the account was deleted by Flickr or if someone else did it via phishing etc.
If the OP wants actual answers, then Help by email is the only avenue.
A week without any response is beyond the target 3-5 days, but not unprecedented if the queue is backlogged.

Did Wikipedia wipe my Flickr account? have you checked the spam folder on your mail account? Sometimes mail gets wrongly classified as junk.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

Response to question 1) is "yes". They do respond.

And if you didn't create the cartoons in the previous account yourself, they then come under the heading of "found on the 'Net", which very possibly are copyright infringements, and for which accounts are regularly deleted...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

levoyeur2 says:

Well, in my experience they don't always reply. In another help topic someone from Flickr explained that:

"For an account to even be considered for deletion it has to really be doing something wrong. In this case, after taking a look at the account again it looked like deletion may have been too harsh so we restored the account and warned the member to not continue to behavior from before. But it takes a pretty egregious break of the CGs to even be considered for deletion. In most cases we do just warn and your account is not in danger of being deleted." source: www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/102379/page2/#reply667587

I had my account deleted with no warning and no response to multiple e-mails. I can't imagine what sort of "egregious break of the CGs " I did to merit a deletion.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

Le Voyeur 2 It's only a matter of time before your new account goes the same way.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Johnny ©ontax says:

Did Wikipedia wipe my Flickr account?

• They were cartoons critical of admin and other abuses on the Wikipedia.


If the cartoon on your new account is anything to go by they were racist as well, that is not complimentary to the Japanese and is very reminiscent of war propaganda from the 40's.

I imagine your new account will follow the old soon...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

"I can't imagine what sort of "egregious break of the CGs " I did to merit a deletion".

I'll bet money that your previous account was deleted for candid "voyeur" shots, specifically ones featuring young women unaware that they're being photographed. As previously noted, your current one is heading down the same path...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

if flickr does not want you, you should try other photo hosting sites. there are many, and many are free.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Radu P says:

Umm, do you have to give your consent to be photographed if you are in public?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

No. It's not about whether they consented, it's the whole "stalker" thing...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Radu P says:

Well, I don't know, but legally, in the US, if someone is in public, they are SOL, you can take as many pictures of them as you want, regardless of how they feel. Of course, it's not nice, but then again, some people make a living out of it.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand PRO says:

John© That cartoon is based on a cartoon by David Lowe. The original was drawn during the war, which is why it is reminiscent of WW2 propaganda - it is what it was.

Disclaimer: Written in the interests of providing information, and nothing else. The usual suspects should not assume or imply anything about anything from this.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

Do a Forum search on "voyeur content", and you'll find that accounts get deleted for such content.

It's important to remember that this is a website, not a country. It has its own rules. The fact that you can do something legally in the US (or anywhere else) doesn't mean that it's allowed on here if the website's owners say "no"...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

The Flickr rules on voyeur content have nothing to do with what is legal or not. They simply do not want this sort of photostream included on their site.

Edit - or what Dr K said!
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

Alternatively: www.flickr.com/help/forum/95223/
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

levoyeur2 says:

Thanks for the information guys. I've made changes to my account.

I still don't know why they couldn't warn me beforehand.

I agree with Radu P about being in public. I also understand the stalker thing.

Again, thanks for the advice.

LV2
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Radu P says:

Well, then if Flickr wants to make it against their rules, it's their right to. But then they should specify that and make the policy official.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

>>But then they should specify that and make the policy official.

They did. It's in the Community Guidelines, which form part of the Terms of Service for the site.
The "Don't be Creepy" guideline is fairly generic, which is good and bad. There are no loopholes for anyone to exploit; but unfortunately I don't think everyone who uses the site understands the terminology.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

It is, and they have - read the very last post in the thread I linked to. It's spelt out by a senior Staff member.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Radu P says:

@Dr. Keats

So you basically expect someone new on Flickr to not just read the TOS/AuP, but to read ALL the threads in the help forum?

@Patrick Costello
So that means they can ban anyone they want, for any reason they want, since the concept of "creepy" is one of the most subjective concepts possible. I like macro photography, and some of my pictures can be considered pretty creepy by many people, should I also be banned from Flickr?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

>>So that means they can ban anyone they want, for any reason they want,

Absolutely. It is a private site. If they don't want your content, they can remove it any time. You agreed to that when you signed up.
Of course if they arbitrarily delete lots of members without cause, they won't have a successful site for very long.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

Here's the relevent section of the TOS:

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.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

levoyeur2 says:

So what defines taking a candid photo of a woman(man or child) for sexual gratification purposes? I don't think that last post (in Dr. Keats link) cleared it up at all. If I take a picture of a woman walking on the street, how is that determined to be for sexual gratification purposes? If someone I've never met is sexually gratified by women wearing blue shirts, is that part of the creepy definition. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just worried that if I take a picture of anyone (people at a baseball game) that I could get my account deleted.

If candid photos are against community guidelines, why are there so many groups devoted to candid photos?

Just curious and a bit confused.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Radu P says:

Well, if I pay for an account and it is deleted without any good reason, I would be really pissed, probably pissed enough to file a small claims court case.

Your argument about being unsuccesful if they start banning people without a good reason is not valid though. Paypal, for example, is know to ban accounts and sometimes steal money from their users (they did it to me, and the Internet is full of such stories). And they are still pretty much #1 in their field, as is Flickr in the photography field.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

I expect people to not try and split hairs after they get binned for uploading stuff they're not supposed to upload. The Internet is full of stories of people being deleted from Flickr for uploading prohibited content, and then threatening lawsuits. Yet to see any lawsuits.

There's a vast, VAST difference between "candid" shots and "voyeur" shots. They're not the same thing...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Smith PRO says:

Well, if I pay for an account and it is deleted without any good reason, I would be really pissed, probably pissed enough to file a small claims court case.

People threaten to do this from time to time, but a successful claim has never been made.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Burnt Umber says:

A little late getting to the conversation but here it goes.

Le Voyeur 2 Please see my response in the "AFM, How Not To Get Deleted" group. You situation is best discussed there.

Radu P Flickr does distinguish between a candid photo of people in public places and being that Creepy guy. I have two contacts which I keep a close eye on. Both have been at it for over two years and both shoot a lot of street/public images of people unaware they are being shot. Both of them have been reviewed by staff on at least one occassion and one had altered his stream accordingly to avoid walking that "creepy" line. Both accounts are alive and well. Both accounts are marked Safe by staff.

This being said. There is a worldwide trend to protect peoples reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public. Yes, if you are out in public in the USA, anyone can take your photo. However, it does not give permission to publish that photo. posting to Flickr is the same as publishing. Not everyone wants their photo plastered over the internet for 30 million people to view regardless of how innocent it is.

Therefore, Flickr take on this trend is any kind of candid photos which have the least little bit of sexualization of the subject or the objectification of the subject will be immediate grounds for deletion upon reports of abuse.

__________________________________________________

Did Wikipedia wipe my Flickr account? Yes Flickr will respond. Do NOT send repeated fmails to staff. Each time a request is sent via "Help by Email" a new case file is generated. If you sent multiple requests in this manner staff has to weed through them all and the process slows down.

You have to respond through the automated reply fmail otherwise you create a mess.

Only staff can answer your question as to why you were deleted.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

Radu P I've heard of only 3 cases of Flickr deleting without good cause, and they were a case of mistake. Restitution was made as best as it could on Flickr's part.

On the other hand in the last 4 years I've seen hundreds complain that they've been deleted for no reason and threatening legal action. Inevitably they've been deleted for not following the rules and it eventually comes out on the thread.

Most of them try to come back, and do the same thing again, or try to circumvent the rules in some way, and get deleted. And then come back and complain again.

The rules are actually fairly simple - and there are plenty of folk around to help if you are unsure. I'd try to good guys at AFM , you might not like their advice but at least it'll be unbiased and could help you keep your account this side of the Flickr rules.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

Actually, from what I can see in Radu P's account, he's in no danger at all...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

Actually, from what I can see in Radu P's account, he's in no danger at all...

ewww... flowers are creeepy!
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Thomas Hawk PRO says:

Did Wikipedia wipe my Flickr account?, Were any of your cartoons critical of President Obama?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard PRO says:

Did Wikipedia wipe my Flickr account?, I'm sorry that there has been a delay in out resonse. I took a look at your current account and I don't see any help cases attached to it. Do you have some case numbers that I can look up to try and find out what's happening?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

"Actually, from what I can see in Radu P's account, he's in no danger at all."

What shocking is that it's such a poorly definable judgement call that can happen to someone with Zero notice.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Thomas Hawk PRO says:

When Flickr locks this thread in the next 30 minutes to avoid criticism over unjustified account deletion you can continue following the conversation here if you'd like: www.flickr.com/groups/dmu2/discuss/72157622020351466/
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Radu P says:

@Dr. Keats
Someone finds this creepy, they even said so:
www.flickr.com/photos/radu_privantu/3412701078/

Of course, it's sarcasm, but the idea is that if Flickr doesn't want some kind of pictures, they should make it clear, in the ToS, not just include anything they don't like in the "don't be creepy rule".

I have some pictures I took on the beach in Romania this year (and the previus years). Just pictures of the whole beach, with lots of people, wide angle. Obviously, those people didn't give me their consent, and some are topless. Some are even man in speedos, who should be marked as restricted, if my understanding is correct ^.^ So in theory, according to the don't be creepy rule, applied in the US, I could get banned for publishing such a picture on my account, right?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Civilized Explorer PRO says:

> So in theory, according to the don't be creepy rule, applied in the
> US, I could get banned for publishing such a picture on my
> account, right?

You can make whatever arguments you like. The "don't be creepy" rule is vague and of no use in determining who will fall under its axe. The fact, though, is that accounts are deleted for photos that are deemed creepy, and the deletions stick. Even though there's no way to determine ahead of time what fickr's voyeur staff will deem creepy.

If your account is deleted and you want to sue in small claims court, read the terms of service applicable in your jurisdiction. In the US, you agree to sue "exclusively in the courts located in the county of Santa Clara, California or the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California."

I have lots of photos I took on the beaches of the French West Indies, and I don't post them on flickr. Saves everyone a lot of aggravation.

In practice, the don't be creepy rule generally applies to voyeur photos of people on the street: often photos of women from behind in tight clothes or from the front in tight tops, but also voyeur photos of men. The fact that the people are in public and have no expectation of privacy, making such photos legal, is not the issue. Flickr has it's vague and unknowable 'don't be creepy' rule, which it enforces. And it seems to me that fetishes are high on flickr's list of creepiness. Photostreams of butts, boobs, and hair get the axe.

You're free to object and quibble over whether some photos are legal or not, but the rule abides.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

Thomas Hawk I think you have Flickr confused with zoomr. zoomr doesn't have a help desk, at least not for the last 6 months and forbids you from even deleting your own account.

Flickr on the other hand allows you to break some rules and will normally warn you - unless of course you totally mess up.

Frankly mate, you'd do better spending time on your site - you've got far more problems at zoomr than Flickr have.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

I predict Flickr is going to lock this account to avoid debate on the current U.S. health care bill before congress.

See how easy it is to make stuff up and pretend it comes true when the inevitable happens?

I'm surprised the whole "voyeur" thing is such a "gray area". It shouldn't be. If you're posting content of others with sexual intentions, posting it to groups and with tags that view the content in a sexualized way, then you're including this person in a sexual act without their consent.

That's the difference between "candid" and "voyeur". The context counts directly towards your intent. Personally I don't give not one fuck if people who abuse women and men in such a way are given a warning or not.

It's one of the few things Flickr does right when it comes to account deletion.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

I predict that Flickr will close this thread instead of giving us donuts. To discuss why Flickr should give us donuts, head over here, www.flickr.com/groups/wedemanddonuts/ to strategize after Flickr inevitably closes the thread.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

They already gave you donuts. Are you never satisfied?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

dammit jakerome. You know they close threads as soon as anyone brings up donuts. They don't want anyone criticizing their non-donut policy.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

RubyMae only with good cause. The Flickr donut account is limited and consequently given only to the most deserving.

Needless to say I've never got one. Apparently I was sent one once, but it got lost in the post to the UK. It ended up with a polar bear in the antarctic - he was as lost as the donut. He did write to tell me it was delicious though. ;o(
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Civilized Explorer PRO says:

I'm surprised the whole "voyeur" thing is such a "gray area". It shouldn't be. If you're posting content of others with sexual intentions, posting it to groups and with tags that view the content in a sexualized way, then you're including this person in a sexual act without their consent.

I think that's a pretty good statement. It's a shame flickr doesn't say that instead of 'don't be creepy.' The problem is, 'don't be creepy, you know what we mean' doesn't give a clue what 'creepy' means. It's a gray area because it's vague, meaningless, and gives no notice of what the prohibited behavior is.

And then I recall the flickr membr who had a photostream of photos of young men with long hair. His account got nuked. I have no clue - are photos of young men with long hair "content of others with sexual intentions"?

And "including this person in a sexual act without their consent." I recall some guy who's stream was moderated by flickr because he had photos of women at a party in leather fetishwear - they were posing for the photos, so it was with their consent. His account wasn't deleted, but still - no boobs, no butts were showing, and they were deemed moderate or restricted, I've forgotten which, on some basis.

How are we supposed to know what flickr will deem creepy? There are clearly areas outside your definition that trigger deletion or moderation.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

Well, "creepy" has to do with potential for account deletion, not content moderation. Fetish imagery, again likely taken in context of what tags and groups it was associated with, even with no nudity, can take on a sexualized intent. Which can be a determining factor when it comes to moderation.

The "creepy" thing however, is absolutely vague, and serves Flickr with its ambiguity, but doesn't serve the users very well. Not that anyone ever bothers to read the guidelines, but for those lucky few who did, it might save them a sign-up fee if they could see that their content wasn't welcome here up front.

The "long hair" account, btw, was just a male version of voyeur content, and had tags and groups similar to the others, with pretty direct sexual intent.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Thomas Hawk PRO says:

Looks like someone (not me) has started a Flickr is Fascist Blog:

thomashawk.com/2009/08/someones-started-a-flickr-is-fasci...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

TH, It appears to us that you're on some sort of personal crusade to save Flickr from itself and that would be fine -- we think that our history of open feedback has made Flickr the wonderful thing that it is today.

But, your increasingly abusive behaviour towards other members and the team won't be tolerated any longer. While Stewart might have entertained your shenanigans, those of us who continue to work here are done. We're blocking you from the Help Forum for the time being.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

But does Flickr have a beef with the Gay/Lesbian community? That seems to be the relevant question at hand.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

heather I've had my run ins with you and other staff, but this time I have to agree with you.

TH has been abusing staff, ignoring the rules (posting commercial URLs), trolling, being "that guy" and trying to use Flickr to promote his own photo hosting site for a year or more.

There'll be some abuse from TH in other forums, but f**k him. I'd trust you above him every time.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros PRO says:

Wow! It saddens me that Flickr's response to criticism is to gag people.

Flickr has vague guidelines arbitrarily carried out, with a delete first, ask questions later approach.

The banning of Thomas from this forum just continues that tradition.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

He's a bad seed I tell ya. A baaaaaaad seed.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

shimsD700 "But does Flickr have a beef with the Gay/Lesbian community?"

No. Not even slightly. It has an issue with folk not flagging properly, but that applies to straight as well as to gay, lesbian, TG and whatever anyone else is.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

In what way has TH been "being 'that guy'"?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

shimsD700 said:

But does Flickr have a beef with the Gay/Lesbian community?

No. Staff have stated elsewhere that Flickr does not discriminate on sexuality.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )
elementalPaul edited this topic 79 months ago.

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

And yet people with vaguely "gay" photostreams are being singled out for this practice.

You don't find that odd?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

Simply stating it doesn't negate the apparent discriminatory behavior.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

adameros Go to zoomr then. There you'll have the personal attention of TH - assuming he ever bothers to do anything there.

Give a look at zoomr's Tos, and record, before you accuse Flickr of a crime ;o/
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros PRO says:

Heather, I'm being attacked by ~Rid©ully~. Are you going to ban him too?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

Say you opened an art gallery and someone opened a rival one across the street. Would you tolerate them hanging out in your gallery, abusing your staff and telling your visitors how rubbish it was?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

Your beef seems to be with Zoomr. Suggest you take it to them.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

Does that constitute "being that guy", then?

I would like to know exactly who "that guy" is. The CG says that I know the guy, but I am not so sure that I do. Please enlighten me.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

And yet this thread and all the posts have absolutely nothing to do with Zoomr. How curious is that? Take an honest look at the thread and then ask yourself why TH has really been gagged.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

By the way, if I opened an art gallery, I wouldn't make it my policy to take a blowtorch to the works of art that I didn't like, without giving my artists prior warning.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

shimsD700 "And yet people with vaguely "gay" photostreams are being singled out for this practice."

Where? You mean they are being deleted for being gay? I've not seen that at all.

I've seen folk trying to get around the rules - and failing.

I've seen TH trying to promote his zoomr and failing. No doubt the web will attack Flickr for finally standing up to TH but I admire Flickr for their decency and courage - he's a sh*t worth taking on. A hypocrite of the first order.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

Can you please answer my question?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

TH is that guy who runs his own photo sharing site, but seems to spend more time on Flickr criticising its operations, its policies, its staff and other members.
Not that he might have any ulterior motives or anything.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

Oh, so is that what it means in the Community Guidelines then?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Just wanted to get a post in before this thread completely devolves and gets locked.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims PRO says:

In a number of recent deletions, people with photostream featuring scantily clad men were deleted *without warning*

Not only are bikini clad women well accepted, they are generally not even considered "unsafe" - a screamingly obvious and discriminatory double standard.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

I don't see any connection between TH and the Community Guidelines. It's not like Flickr have deleted his account or anything. Posting to this forum is a privilege. It's not a right of membership. If anyone abuses their posting privileges, they have them removed.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

stephanie.keating which one?

I'm taking a time out, netiquette requires me to be cool and not abuse others, shame TH didn't think of the time out.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

austenhaines says:

LMAO @RubyMae

And i want to get a post in too before its locked. LOL

Had better buy my own doughnuts i guess.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

@notnixon PRO says:

Haha! Brilliant! Your response to criticism about censorship is to censor it.

What. A. Joke.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Civilized Explorer PRO says:

> Not that anyone ever bothers to read the guidelines

Not beforehand, I agree. :->

On the other hand:

"Do Flickr.com EVER respond, explaining why they deleted images and closed accounts ... or do they just ignore people until they die off?"

Yes. They don't post the response on the help forum because of privacy issues, but they do respond by email.

So there's the answer to the question.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

By the way, you guys are creating a really nice red herring. Just because TH is affiliated with another photo site doesn't mean that the criticisms he has of Flickr aren't valid.

In every Help Forum post that I've seen where TH has demanded an answer as to why accounts are deleted without warning and without a way to undo the deletion in case of a mistake (which Flickr has admitted it has made, in several cases), the admins get very clammed up and lock the thread.

I think it's a fair and valid criticism. TH hasn't mentioned the photo site that he is affiliated once in the threads that I've seen - I'd love for someone to point out some examples, though. That'd be swell.

In the meantime, it looks like you're all just vilifying him because it's convenient, and because the staff clearly don't want to listen to what he has to say.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

shimsD700 "In a number of recent deletions, people with photostream featuring scantily clad men were deleted *without warning*"

And your problem is?

Read the TOS and community guidelines!
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

TrEjAcK says:

Heh, I see Heather likes poking ant hills too...
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

~Rid©ully~ You stated that TH has been "being that guy." I'd like to know in what way.

Patrick Costello
I only assumed, since the Community Guidelines clearly (and conveniently ambiguously) state:

Don't be creepy.
You know that guy. Don't be that guy.

You guys seemed to be claiming that TH was "that guy." And if you meant it in a different way...well then my, that just really points to how ambiguously worded that little nugget in the CG is, doesn't it?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

I'm not staff, so I'm just taking a wild stab here, but the threads in question get closed because the OP's question has been answered and TH is just hijacking the thread for his own personal quest against flickr.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

shimsD700 said:

Simply stating it doesn't negate the apparent discriminatory behavior.

Sorry it took me a while to find it. Here's the staff statement about sexual discrimination (or rather lack thereof). Hope that clears things up for you :-)

It may have been mentioned elsewhere but Flickr actually seems to be discriminating a lot less these days by cracking down on voyeur streams containing images of men as well as those containing images of women.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )
elementalPaul edited this topic 79 months ago.

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

FTMFW!

Also... donuts.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Madiator says:

I very well accept with stephanie.keating!
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Johnny ©ontax says:

Thank you!
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

stephanie.keating he can't run his own site so he has to try and ruin others.

I've not seen a single valid criticism from TH, apart from the fact that we poor Gnomes are Nazi despots trying to stifle the idea that the US might have elected a Democrat president. That might be true, but only because I have a crush on Hilary Clinton ;oPP
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

@notnixon PRO says:

I bet this thread gets closed soon. You mark my words.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

picsbymac says:

So the DMU thread that got linked....it's been quiet for 2 hours so people decided to bring the name-calling here?

For criticism to a stand chance of being heard, name-calling and worse doesn't help critics' cause.

Time outs are issued to kids. How appropriate.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

~Rid©ully~ So do you mean "that guy" in the sense that the Community Guidelines means "that guy"? Or in a different sense? Exactly who is "that guy", because it seems I'm very confused about that little piece of the CG. I wonder if anyone else is.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

stephanie.keating PRO says:

picsbymac
I'm sorry, can you point out the name-calling? I seem to have missed it.

Wait, no. There was the part where people alleged that Thomas Hawk has been "abusing staff." That could border on libel, I would imagine. It sounds like a pretty serious allegation.

Oh, wait. There was also the part where people said Thomas Hawk was "that guy."

Were you implying that Thomas Hawk was doing the name-calling?
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

@notnixon PRO says:

A community that cannot accept opposing views in not a community at all.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros PRO says:

So, what is the difference between voyeur and candid photography? If I take pictures of people from street level it's okay, but if I take it from a balcony it's not? If someone is in underwear it is bad, or a swimming suit is okay?

This is exactly the kind of vagueness that causes problems. It's on Flickr's shoulders to better define the rules instead of their arbitrary "creepy" meter.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Rob LaRosa (Roaming Vegas) says:

Since when is posting a link to a blog that has a problem with flickr "abuse"? If anything, it's a heads up about a situation that flickr may want to get control of before it turns into bad press.

Blocking TH is for posting that link is absurd.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )
Rob LaRosa (Roaming Vegas) edited this topic 79 months ago.

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

You don't strike me as being that naive. If I want to champion site A at the expense of site B, I can tell everyone how wonderful site A is, or I can simply denigrate site B without ever mentioning site A.
If anyone is unhappy with the way Flickr operates, they can simply take their custom elsewhere. Paying them a yearly subscription just to be able to complain about how bad things are here, seems odd to me.
If I get poor service. I vote with my feet.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

Chris Nixon I agree, it's called zoomr and it's run (badly) by TH

EDIT

TH is an arse who has been given far too much leeway. If he'd have been anyone else he'd have been banned months ago.

Zack since you're the one to close this feel free to give me a time out from the Forum. I'll still loves ya ;o)
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )
~Rid©ully~ edited this topic 79 months ago.

view photos

adameros PRO says:

~Rid©ully~: While you are "abusing" people without Flickr giving you the same treatment they gave Thomas, would you care to actually cite examples to your claims of abuse and non-valid criticisms? Links would be nice.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

picsbymac says:

@stephanie.keating - I was referring to the thread that was posted for everyone to visit. Referring to a staff member in the other thread as a 'censorbot' is name-calling.

Take it down a notch. I wasn't implying anything.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

Chris: it's already been established that the thread is at risk once jakerome brought donuts into it. So your "marked words" are a bit late. TH wasn't banned for posting a link, the banhammer just came down right after he did so. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It's absurd to think that coming in and yelling "You're going to close this thread because you don't want me talking about donuts!" just prior to the thread closing, is what leads it to closing. Thread hijacks are usually closed because they were hijacked, not because of whatever random gibberish the person happened to be going on about at the time.

Case in point.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )
The Searcher edited this topic 79 months ago.

view photos

ososment says:

ah well, the future of the world are the insects
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard PRO says:

Wow! It saddens me that Flickr's response to criticism is to gag people.

We are not gagging TH from saying what he wants to say on the site and of course he has his own forums. The Help Forum is here for a specific purpose, to help people using the site. We are trying to moderate the help forum as we have always done to keep it on track to accomplish that goal. Anyone that needs help with or a question about an account deletion can write in, since that is the best place, and we will work with them.

On that note, this thread is way off topic and has nothing to do with the OPs question so I'm going to close it.

Did Wikipedia wipe my Flickr account?, it looks like you haven't been active here in this topic since it started so I'll send a help case to get a little more info on those help cases. The email address I'll use to contact you will go to the contact email address for your Flickr account.
Posted 79 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads