|
|
I use Adblock Plus, but it is turned off here on Flickr. It amazes me so many websites will tell you have that extension on. It's like you never know who is really watching what your doing online.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I also have Adblock Plus and it has never caused a problem for me. It is turned on for Flickr but I also have a grandfathered Pro account.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 ColleenM:
From time-to-time, AdBlock will 'break' Flickr pages so you can't use them. It's one of the most common causes of 'Flickr doesn't work for me" posts in the Help Forum.
This is not what I have seen here over the years. Adblock can create issues but is far from the most common cause of why flickr is not working for other members.
There are many issues why Flickr might be broken for any member and it is not Adblock most of the times.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
People who pay $49.99 for ad-free should have all ads removed from their photostreams. Period.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 glc20000: That's not what the description says. You get what you pay for, as long as you read the instructions first.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 The Searcher:
Yeah, no shit. I said for fifty bucks people SHOULD have all ads removed from their photostreams.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000: Yeah well for $499 people should get a lot more than 1 extra terabyte. Flickr created these ridiculous subscription options intentionally to dissuade people from ever using them. But an unfortunate few clicked "buy" without thinking it through.
Businesses get to decide what to sell and what price to set.
We get to decide if that's worth it and whether or not to hand over our money.
No one should be handing Flickr their money. It's not worth it, and more importantly, Flickr doesn't want it.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
Flickr created these ridiculous subscription options intentionally to dissuade people from ever using them. But an unfortunate few clicked "buy" without thinking it through.
Businesses get to decide what to sell and what price to set.
We get to decide if that's worth it and whether or not to hand over our money.
No one should be handing Flickr their money. It's not worth it, and more importantly, Flickr doesn't want it.
The whole premise of your argument is not very coherent. In one sentence you say business get to decide and elsewhere you say that Flickr doesn't want ad free options... yet they offer them. That's not even circular logic... it's just illogical.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
You don't seem to get it either. Between 2011 and 2013, traffic to this site dropped significantly. Maybe by 50%. Flickr was dying on its feet. All the changes we've seen in the last fifteen months are an effort to try and resuscitate it. Maybe they will succeed; maybe they won't. I hope they do. I don't like all the changes (Fred is a definite step backwards from the NPE) but I'm giving staff and flickr my support anyway.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Saffron Blaze: I'm sorry you don't understand. As you have made clear you're often confused, and I just don't have time to walk you through it tonight. Perhaps if you did some research in the forum threads from the new account options when they started last year, you could figure it out for yourself.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
Not necessary. I am happy with the ad free account Flickr provides me even though they, apparently according to you, don't want such things.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Pacdog:
i have had one problem with the NPE when using ad block plus
but i don't use ad block on flickr any more as the ordinary ads dont bother me
but these ads are images so ad block now is no use anyway
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you again for all these great responses .... so many in fact it's hard to keep hold of the central point... but bottom line here it seems is ...
1) There is NO way that the "public" - that hasn't paid the 49.99/yr 'add-free' charge, will NOT to see ads. (yes it does seem to work differently for some legacies accounts - but that is not an option for me or for anyone new to Flickr)
2) These ads are same size as my uploaded photos and that even if they are "fairly" easy to differentiate from my photos, the mere fact that they appear in the same frame and in response to the same click forward creates a glitch of dissonance each time one lands.
3) The net effect on the viewing experience is ... (to my mind) ghastly, tasteless and over the top embarrassing ... and any friend, colleague or client who I give my link to, would be quite correct in assuming I was complicit in this embarrassment - (that I was too cheap to pay for an ad-free version) ... not to mention the fact that my own photos - the ones that mean so much to me look back at me now in helpless despair. "So, this is what we've come to ... hawkers for ads ... and not even unpaid ... nope ... we have to PAY for this insult.
I know many of you have invested a great deal of time, energy and art into your streams ... and so you may have to stick around to see this battle through.
But for me who is new here ... and certainly no longer inclined to expand my presence ... perhaps it would be cool to recap the alternatives out there. Yes having a portfolio website is definitely an option ... but i already have a BDX WP site that is not a portfolio site and I will indeed this week look for plugs-in or some solution that would allow me to show my 123 photos in the big wide format.
Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks again.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 BodaciousDreamExpeditions:
we have to PAY for this insult
Someone will be along, well, me in this instance, to point out visitors get the ads whether you pay or not. Perhaps I misunderstood and what you were saying is you pay and still get insulted?
As to other options? Depends on what you want to achieve. Flickr is still great for sharing with other flickr folks and developing an organised and searchable archive. If you want just a portfolio there are many options.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BodaciousDreamExpeditions:
BDX WP
bdx wp... web page but the bdx is unclear for me. would be nice if u could explain.. google didnt really help
seems to be an option for you... why not for others
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
Flickr created these ridiculous subscription options intentionally to dissuade people from ever using them.
Not so sure about that. A mix of subscription and ad revenue isn’t a bad thing to have. Subscriptions on auto renew provide a steady revenue stream that does not have to be actively canvassed.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Rexi Souls:
bdx wp... web page but the bdx is unclear for me. would be nice if u could explain.. google didnt really help
bdx = BodaciousDreamExpeditions = too lazy and presumptuous to type the full thing out.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
I said for fifty bucks people SHOULD have all ads removed from their photostreams.
Never confuse what is with what ought to be.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 simonov:
Never confuse what is with what ought to be.
I'm going to use that as the motto of the Help Forum.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
simonov:
+1
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks. It's part of my Fourfold Life Advice for Youth, which also works for older people:
1. Be useful
2. Be nice to people
3. Avoid debt
4. Never confuse what is with what ought to be.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
simonov:
1. Be useful
2. Be nice to people
3. Avoid debt
4. Never confuse what is with what ought to be. 5. Clear your cache.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
simonov:
Great advice..
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BodaciousDreamExpeditions:
and any friend, colleague or client who I give my link to, would be quite correct in assuming I was complicit in this embarrassment
If you're a professional photographer dealing with clients you should have your own website. The pros that I know don't even use Flickr. If you're a photo enthusiast like myself, Facebook, Tumblr, and Google+ all do a good job with photos.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
simonov:
Never confuse what is with what ought to be.
I think some people are missing the point of this line. It is meant to remind people not to settle.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Pictures from the Ghost Garden: That would be true if Flickr made any money off of them. But it turned out the old "Pro" accounts were way less profitable than the advert revenue, plus it didn't help that Pro accounts only made up about 3% of all Flickr membership. The two new membership options were of very little value. The pricing was to both dissuade people from using them, as well as attempt to offset the cost if people actually bought them. They decided that hiding adverts from our eyeballs (but not removing them for others) would be roughly worth $50 to them to do. But with only a few thousand people signing up for them, steady income was never an intention.
And the $499 for an extra terabyte (which I think they've since cut)? That was just insulting, and after likely no one signed up, they just removed it as an option.
That isn't to say there isn't potential for a subscription option, and that yes they could generate additional revenue from that. But it won't come from "offering" empty account options. There've been rumors they're working on a suite of tools for "power" users, possibly new editing tools, marketing tools, etc. That's the sort of thing they could sell: an actual product with actual value.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
What was Flickr's incentive to offer these fee based options when, as you describe, they wanted to dissuade people with their exorbitant costs? Would it have not been easier to just cancel fee based options?
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
* it turned out the old "Pro" accounts were way less profitable than the advert revenue
* ...it didn't help that Pro accounts only made up about 3% of all Flickr membership.
* The two new membership options were of very little value.
*The pricing was to both dissuade people from using them, as well as attempt to offset the cost if people actually bought them.
*They decided that hiding adverts from our eyeballs (but not removing them for others) would be roughly worth $50 to them to do.
*But with only a few thousand people signing up for them, steady income was never an intention.
* ...after likely no one signed up [for the extra terrabyte]
You keep posting bold assertions like these, yet I have never seen you post any proof to back them up.
Yes, Yahoo have a new business model for Flickr, yet that in itself is not proof of anything you state. It's not as though Yahoo have an impressive track record in business models for most of the businesses they have taken over, after all.
I suggest that all the assertions you so blithely make above are pure conjecture on your part.
If not, please provide proof that you are not talking out of your...
Thanks.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Saffron Blaze:
I think some people are missing the point of this line. It is meant to remind people not to settle.
It's actually meant to remind people of the difference between reality and what they think reality ought to be. I see too many people wasting time and effort based on a very uninformed perception of the world. If you can make a change, great, but in most cases you can't, and pretending -- nay, insisting -- things are different from what they really are won't get you very far.
Just an idea I arrived at to help people lead happier, more fulfilling lives. Some of the most unhappy folks I have run across have this acute difficulty of separating what is from what ought to be.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Saffron Blaze:
Would it have not been easier to just cancel fee based options?
Many people were surprised that they didn't do exactly that.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
And the $499 for an extra terabyte
I wasn't referring to that. It isn't what the OP was posting about and as you say, it is no longer offered.
As far as the $49.99 subscription goes I don't think there is a basis to make a categorical statement that Flickr do not want people to buy it, but they will have set the price at a level that will compensate for the loss of ad revenue.
Opinions on whether or not it is good value will vary but I don't think that it is so prohibitively expensive as to be set at a level to prevent it; from actually being purchased. The OP clearly thinks that the exact terms of the subscription were not made obvious and that is going to colour their view of whether or not it is good value.
. The Searcher:
But with only a few thousand people signing up for them, steady income was never an intention.
Are the numbers sold actually publicly available?
In any event it is still steady income that does not have to be re-canvassed and it has the potential to build year on year and may provide a platform for upsell opportunities if other subscription options are made available in the future.
Clearly it did not make business sense to continue to sell the less expensive pro subscription which also offered ad free browsing to those who had not paid for it.
Some will think that it is to Yahoo/Flickr's credit that they have allowed existing pro members to retain that arrangement, for the time being at any rate. (Ed. to make last paragraph make sense!)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
Pictures from the Ghost Garden edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
simonov:
Never confuse activity with action.
Never confuse education with intelligence.
Never confuse your path with your destination.
Famous quotes that place the positive on the trailing item. Sorry if I mistook your concept to follow this fairly consistent convention.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I tried that originally, but it doesn't read right. I have often wondered if the word order would cause some confusion.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
simonov:
Perhaps it can serve dual duty for both the pragmatists and optimists :-)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pictures from the Ghost Garden:
As far as the $49.99 subscription goes I don't think there is a basis to make a categorical statement that Flickr do not want people to buy it, but they will have set the price at a level that will compensate for the loss of ad revenue.
Just not possible that Yahoo can make $50 in ad revenue by showing one person on-line ads. Please use some rational thought here. The original comment was obviously more accurate in that Yahoo wants to kill all paid revenue in favor of ads whether they make any money or not. That's their business model now for the free account, "If our products and services are not up to your standards, please lower your standards."
Edit 8/11/14: Do the math, 87 million accounts at $50/yr ad-free = over $4 Trillion in ad revenue as an offset? Yes, maybe just not possible! Here is my math: 3 days in programming for an ad-free switch at $75/hr for one employee = $1800 in overhead, divided by $50 per account for anyone stupid enough to sign up for that = 36 expected new subscribers to cover overhead. My apology to the originator of the thread for not reading the fine print. If you have better statistics please let us know.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
Sydney Dog edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
It's not complicated. Just charge $49.99/yr for a Pro Account. Those who don't want their page to look chintzy with all those ads will sign up. Those who are indifferent will use the free accounts. The fact that Yahoo! no longer gives us a choice is ridiculous.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
Again, it's that it's not worth $50 to them. There's no "pro" when the free account has all of the same features now. What they should do is figure out a value for actually removing ads on a photostream, and then charge that.
I'd say the bidding starts at $150. If it's that important to people they'll pay.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They should make every other picture in our photostreams an ad. Better yet, two out of every three photos should be an ad!
Hell, why not?
I love how many people on this forum topic defend Yahoo! They completely dismiss all the content that we provide for free. Without which, there'd be no ad revenue in the first place.
People are sheep, they take it up the ass, nothing will change, except maybe more ads.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BodaciousDreamExpeditions - upon seeing the disaster that flickr has become exploiting users by bombarding viewers with inserted ads, I immediately made my stream private. Ads don't belong in photo streams oh, and flickr 'volunteer' help forum (?) lackeys: kmacray & Costello have zero to contribute except to bully you off this thread, pathetic!
Make your photos private until they change it yet again.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000: What amazes me is seeing people whine about a business model that allows them to have free accounts in the first place. If you value your content so much that you believe it's what brings viewers to Flickr, then you should go spend the money to make your own website and display your images exactly as you want.
Some of the new advert strategies Flickr is trying suck hard (the fake photo pages for example). But complaining about the actual fact that Flickr is supported by ads is pretty silly. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from going out there and creating your own, and expensive, ad-free experience for yourself. Have at it.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for this thread.
It reminded me I need to contact Yahoo's customer's service about my Pro account. It's supposed to auto renew this month, I think, but I'm not sure if it will do what it is supposed to do, because of the gift of the 3 months, (from 2 years ago). I don't remember the exact dates.
I do not want those huge offensive car ads invading my photostream, although I wouldn't mind the cute kittens and xmas food ads so much.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 pongo 2007: Check the top of your account settings. I too had a variety of gifts on my account, but when it said "your account will auto-renew on XX" it hit right when it said it would. If it isn't set to renew it will say "your account will expire on XX" instead.
I also got several emails, and more importantly Flickrmail, with warnings of impending renewal, as well as warning of account expiration from before I had the auto-renewal set up.
If for some reason it doesn't renew on the day it says it will, there's a grace period of a couple weeks at least where you can still re-up without the account vanishing forever.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
You're easily amazed. Must not be that bright.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000: I get that a lot. Making fun of my intellectual handicap doesn't make you any less whiny.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Patrick Costello:
I don't like all the changes.... but I'm giving staff and flickr my support anyway.
Me, too. For those who chose to stay, supporting the staff as they juggle all the fixes and changes (with an eye to an [eventual] better site), is the only attitude that will help the cause.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I heard one member of the Flickr staff is a cyborg that controls Explore and is hung like a donkey, so like, what's up with that? So, what's everyone reading?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Okinawa Soba:
I don't like all the changes.... but I'm giving staff and flickr my support anyway.
Me, too. For those who chose to stay, supporting the staff as they juggle all the fixes and changes (with an eye to an [eventual] better site), is the only attitude that will help the cause.
Of course you do! That's because you two don't have gaudy ads ruining your photostreams. I hope Yahoo! starts inserting ads every six photos in your photostreams, and then we'll reevaluate your level of support.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
I guess it pays to keep our pro accounts.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
reevaluate your level of support.
I don't bother to use sites that I can't support. Especially if they are free.
If a site meets my needs, then I use it. If it doesn't, then I don't. I haven't got the mental energy to keep coming back to web pages I hate.
You have several choices:
a) Keep looking for a better site
b) Design, build, maintain a site that is perfect for you
c) Use Flickr.
Focusing all your energy on how unhappy you are with a site is only going to wear you down. Use the energy to find or build something that you truly enjoy.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 kmacgray:
I guess it pays to keep our pro accounts. +very many indeed
.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm paid up on Pro until 2019. Very keen to keep it.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well cared for: Pro till 20 July 2018 - and if still available: renewal for the next stretch.
.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kmacgray:
 amazingstoker:
your comments suggest that you would drop the site if you were an existing or a new member if you did not have the option of pro then,
 Michael Smith:
 MabelAmber® ***Pluto5339*** Queen of Streetshots:
how about you 2. be honest now.
you already know my answer
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Dorsetdunk:
how about you 2. be honest now.
you already know my answer
You mean, would I drop the site if I had no other choice but a free account.
Well... if the giant "native" ads would get too annoying I might do that, or else just use the site for storage.
And to be honest: I find the "native ads" (a very elegant term for something really awful) really out-out-out-outrageous. If they were to put me at the wheel, the first thing I would do would be to get the programmers to undo that bit of horrendous coding.
.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
MabelAmber® ***Pluto5339*** Queen of Streetshots:
Thanks MabelA.... for your honest comments. In the past you and a number of the other HF regulars were more supportive of Staff. I guess that has its limits. For $50/yr I would use another site. For free its either Flickr or Google+ for me. Note that Google+ has lots of annoying ads everywhere, but not with your photos. And, the Google+ slideshow has always worked without the Flickr problems. I only look at HF when I see a Bug or have too much time on my hands, no need to reply to me!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Sydney Dog:
were more supportive of Staff
Actually my support of Flickr has always concerned the *Community Guidelines*.
Also: I am none too sure whether the decision to implement these native ads were the decision of the people behind the faces on the "About" page or rather more the decision of the captain of the ship: Ms Marissa Mayer.
ED. And while I am at it: generally I frown upon the removal of a number of functionalities - in doing that Flickr is taking a wrong turn (in my humble opinion).
.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Nina Pearman:
hung like a donkey
I think that was... smells like a donkey.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kmacgray:
I guess it pays to keep our pro accounts.
We finally agree on something :-)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
MabelAmber® ***Pluto5339*** Queen of Streetshots:
grateful for your input Mabel that's exactly my point. ultimately this will change how people use flickr in the future the community will be lost and that will then effect pro users too.
"native ads"
I am using the term because its the official one used by Marissa Mayer .
and yes she is responsible .best to have the right terminology in preparation.
Sydney Dog:
Note that Google+ has lots of annoying ads everywhere, but not with your photos
exactly they are not interfering with the main presentation as you intend your images to be seen by others .youtube also has the courtesy to allow you to skip the ads
not so with Marissa Mayer who has completely crossed the line and turned into the queen of spam.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dorsetdunk:
your comments suggest that you would drop the site if you were an existing or a new member if you did not have the option of pro
No, that's just what you're reading into it.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sydney Dog:
a number of the other HF regulars were more supportive of Staff
It's possible to support staff and be critical of Flickr at the same time, but this concept seems to escape people who only see in black and white, good and bad.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ColleenM:
You have several choices:
a) Keep looking for a better site
b) Design, build, maintain a site that is perfect for you
c) Use Flickr.
I do use other sites. I use Google+ which I like quite a bit. I also use Tumblr (also owned by Yahoo!) which is decent.
But Flickr would be the best if it weren't for the ads. Pics look great on Flickr. Pics uploaded to Tumblr don't look quite as good.
If I know one thing, it's that Google wants to be the best at everything they do. I wouldn't be surprised if Google+ becomes THE PLACE to post your pics online within a year or two.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000: Google is less than six months away from killing Google+ completely, it's that much of a lost cause. So good luck with that one.
Dorsetdunk:
youtube also has the courtesy to allow you to skip the ads
While I'm not defending these horrible fake photo ads, you give Google too much credit. Some ads on Youtube are skippable, but many are not, and require sitting through the 15 or 30 seconds before watching the video.
But even if not skippable, the thing that Google does right is they don't try to pass off their adverts as the actual content, like Flickr/Yahoo is currently doing.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
If I know one thing, it's that Google wants to be the best at everything they do. I wouldn't be surprised if Google+ becomes THE PLACE to post your pics online within a year or two.
So how much did they pay you to post that?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The OP is addressing a issue with ad free accounts and pretty much never was asking for help using Flickr as I read their original post except asking for other sites to use.
That said Pro accounts are not available to any member who did not have and kept it. Bringing up the We are pro accounts is just wrong as it is not a feature anyone can get now.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
If I know one thing, it's that Google wants to be the best at everything they do.
It has very little to do with being the best and almost everything to do with crushing or absorbing the competition.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 FlyButtafly:
If I know one thing, it's that Google wants to be the best at everything they do. I wouldn't be surprised if Google+ becomes THE PLACE to post your pics online within a year or two.
So how much did they pay you to post that?
$49.99
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
the thing that Google does right is they don't try to pass off their adverts as the actual content...
Unless we're talking about their main search engine, in which case, the search results that come up at the tops of the search pages are there because interested parties are paying for those spots high on the search results to generate revenue for themselves vs. just being relevant search finds in the unbiased Google machine.
It's sneaky, especially considering they start each search result with a few results marked "AD", so the searchers (no offense to your moniker!) think all the advertising crap is finished, but they don't realize many of the following top listings are paying sponsors.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
Buddha's Ghost edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
Nina Pearman:
I heard one member of the Flickr staff is a cyborg that controls Explore and is hung like a donkey, so like, what's up with that? So, what's everyone reading?
That's all true. I have the bruises to prove it.
I'm unable to read anything at the moment because my eyes are still watering.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
Google is less than six months away from killing Google+ completely...
Less than six months, eh?
Is that an actual fact that you can back up in any reliable way, or is it merely another of those "facts" that you've conjured out of thin air?
Oh, and no, I'm not claiming that G+ is healthy, good, worthwhile or anything else. I don't use it and never have.
But I would like to believe that you actually know what you're talking about. ;-)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Nionyn_:
The Searcher:
Google is less than six months away from killing Google+ completely...
Less than six months, eh?
Is that an actual fact that you can back up in any reliable way, or is it merely another of those "facts" that you've conjured out of thin air?
Oh, and no, I'm not claiming that G+ is healthy, good, worthwhile or anything else. I don't use it and never have.
But I would like to believe that you actually know what you're talking about. ;-)
Good post.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
glc20000:
From earlier in this thread:
Never confuse what is with what ought to be.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
Check the top of your account settings. I too had a variety of gifts on my account, but when it said "your account will auto-renew on XX" it hit right when it said it would. If it isn't set to renew it will say "your account will expire on XX" instead.
I also got several emails, and more importantly Flickrmail, with warnings of impending renewal, as well as warning of account expiration from before I had the auto-renewal set up.
If for some reason it doesn't renew on the day it says it will, there's a grace period of a couple weeks at least where you can still re-up without the account vanishing forever.
Thanks for that info.. last time I checked I'm sure it said August, and the last billing was in August too. now it says November, so it must of updated itself.
:-)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dorsetdunk:
I'd probably find the adverts a bit annoying, but I don't think I'd drop Flickr completely. I certainly wouldn't have the warm fuzzy feeling I have about Flickr at the moment, however.
But at $25/yr? Hell, it's a no-brainer.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sydney Dog:
Just not possible that Yahoo can make $50 in ad revenue by showing one person on-line ads. Please use some rational thought here.
Sydney Dog:
Do the math
I have no idea what Yahoo make as an average CPM yield on display advertising or whether their rates include a click through element (many do not) so I am not in a position to be able to "do the math".
I did try some "Free Option" style browsing by signing out and in 15 minutes or so I had been served up 25+ display ads.
If I extrapolate that based on my regular Flickr activity that is upwards of 50K ad page impressions p.a. There are sites out there where that level of activity that will deliver more than $50 (there are articles about rates and discounts for on line advertising in general if you search Google).
But of course there are going to be a lot of accounts with viewing activity that generate less advertising page impressions than that, and others that generate more. Some people who don't browse much or participate in the social side will generate very few or even none. And a lot of accounts are effectively dormant. So you cannot take the Ad Free subscription (good value or not) and directly relate it to calculations about potential annual advertising revenue from free accounts.
But that wasn't really my main point anyway which was only that I don't think a subscription set at $50 is necessarily priced to deliberately deter purchase.
But that does not mean that I will sign up for ad free if I lose my pro account in the future. I will consider my options if and when that happens
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Google charges $120 for 1TB of storage. DropBox charges $100 for 100GB of storage. Yahoo thru Flickr is giving away the farm at 1TB free in favor of a few ads that offend every guest. Seems like a huge business mistake to me that only got media attention for Marissa & Co for a day or so. I can't find any numbers on whether Yahoo makes or loses money on Flickr, but in the future I'm guessing it will lose a lot due to overhead for free storage and force even more undesirable changes.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sydney Dog:
Google charges $120 for 1TB of storage. DropBox charges $100 for 100GB
But presumably you can actually use those as “proper" back up for all types of files? And whilst Flickr may notionally offer 1TB they are not going to have to actually provide it in the majority of cases given the sizes of the jpegs that most people are uploading. My 9687 photos are taking up 0.0065TB. If I wanted to store my original RAW and PSD files “in the cloud” I would need a lot more than 1TB.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pictures from the Ghost Garden:
My 9687 photos are taking up 0.0065TB.
Sounds like a misplaced decimal point unless you upload very small images. With 1TB of storage people will upload full JPEGs as standard practice as I have read in another thread at 10MB +/- each. So, 100,000 photos is not realistic, I agree. But, 10,000 like you have, could be 100GB. Videos can be much larger. I don't really want to start a debate on how much free storage will cost Yahoo, just another item that will probably lead to a deterioration in the service.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sydney Dog:
When I first joined Flickr I did upload some full size files but found it painfully slow, even with fast broadband, especially as I was uploading an archive of about 4500 images at the time, so I decided to “optimise”.
I don’t load anything with a maximum dimension of more than 1200 pixels. They look fine on line, upload nice and fast, and provide a degree of damage limitation in the event of “piracy”. My originals are backed up on multiple hard drives with at least one copy off site. So that decimal point is actually in the right place. The file sizes that I upload vary between about 250 kb and 1.2mb each depending on the source. I shoot film as well as digital DSLR and iPhone. the average is less than 1mb so my 9687 uploads only amount to 6.5 gb.
We’ve gone seriously off topic but most of the ad free action right now is over on the “Ads on pro accounts bug” thread so hopefully we won’t get told off :)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads