This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
definitively not unique, because smugmug.com does it too (for a price though). plus as everybody should know, there is no such thing as unlimited storage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenarslan ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 10 July 2006
http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/#65 Details about upload limits etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yy-bo ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 2 September 2006
Can we have a photo of the offending ad? As I understand, derivative works using the CC license should also be licensed the same way (like the GFDL?) so the Ad itself should be free. :D Shrumster ( talk)
Google also shows flickr pages especially when searching for screen names and owner names. But this does not mean that searching the words in flickr photo titles or tags that flickr pages will show up. I don't understand the second sentence and think it is ungrammatical. Can somebody work out what it means and tidy it up? 86.142.150.252 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How is the location of the servers relevant? Is the US location and Patriot act discussion called out for all web sites served out of the US? That makes little sense.
If I recall correctly, when Flickr started out, the servers were located in Canada. They (or the data on them) were then moved to a location in the United States, which may have had some relevance as far as copyright laws, etc. -Pat 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
External link: [ NIPSA] Topics:
RomeoOscarBravo 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of 3rd party Flick tools and utilities on the web, it would be a good idea to list the best of those utilities and tools with links and describe them in this article
Can anyone provide a list of similar sites, or provide examples? The ability to compare/contrast with other sites might help this article. - [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 00:25, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC).
Pikasa springs to mind. Its Hello thing is used to post photos on to blogs. I don't know too much about it and I'm a bit short of time at the moment, but if this article survives, I'll bring some of that information. One of the big pluses of flickr, apparently, is the ease of putting up photos compared with others -- anyone who's tried to use MSN Photos can attest to the benefit of that -- you can email a photo into your part of the album. Dr Zen 01:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So the best examples so far is one Windows-only application from Google, and two "neat features" added to major portals (Yahoo and MSN). In contrast, Flickr's core functionality is entirely web-based and accessible and it is a standalone site dedicated to this function.
Someone in the VfD claimed that they had used "every single one of these from Canada to the UK" or something like that, and I wasn't aware there was such a glut.
There are of course also the moblogging sites, but they aren't doing what Flickr does either. They provide you with a means to send annotated photos from your cellphone or other mobility method as a means of visually chronicling your life. You could do that with Flickr, but its main use is to collect your photos, organize them, catalog them, and display them publicly or share them with others.
What bugs me is how much I've used Flickr recently to find CC images for use in WP, with some successes, and it's deemed non-notable.
Another things that occurs to me: Theoretically, if something really is a good thing, and really does have numerous good qualities, it won't pass the encyclopedic sniff test because it appears to be unbalanced marketing.
- [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 01:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
It's pointless getting worked up over it. It won't be the first or last thing of genuine notability that gets cut. Here's a product that is in use by thousands at least of users, that you meet every day if you surf blogs, that has currency throughout the interwebnet, and it's "not notable" because some guy doesn't do those things. I've no idea, btw, what the "offerings" from Canada etc are. The guy didn't feel the need to actually name any.
I'm not sure that listing good features actually does appear to be unbalanced marketing. It's perfectly neutral (because "features" are "good features" by definition). The excuse for deletion is that it's an "ad", but, for instance, saying that a reason for MS Word's popularity is its integration with other MS packages is not "advertising" Word but pointing out a truth about it! The policy doesn't include any standard for decision (ultimately the thing that upsets Jscott, I think) and individuals use coded language to dismiss what they personally don't want in. Still, nothing is preventing anyone from providing more balance by listing what Flickr lacks! Dr Zen 02:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zooomr is a similar site, just throwing that out there.
Arsi
00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone added Category:Social networking. I'm not aware that Flickr is a tool for social networking. Is it? Discuss. - Keith D. Tyler [ flame 01:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Can sb expand this section or explain to me how to verify if flickr images are licensed under a license compatibile with Wiki/Commons? I looked over a few but all I see is the text '© All rights reserved.' in the lower right corner, with no hyperlink to specific license. This doesn't look like CC or anything 'good' to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know how many photo are currently on flickr? -- 84.93.133.8 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The most recent figure I heard (early 2007) they were getting at least ten times that (2 million a day). 199.172.169.7 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm a bit behind the times - I have fond memories of upgrading my Atari ST from 520kb to an impressive 1024kb - but I believe the article would benefit from a short mention of the technical aspects of the site; Flickr seems to be taking off more and more, and I wouldn't bet against it cracking the billion-photo mark by the end of this year. It must have servers the size of NASA and it must cost a huge amount to run, yet it is free. - Ashley Pomeroy 12:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The site is usable with either flash or AJAX to upload / contribute. It's usable in plain HTML to browse / search. 129.67.100.122 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody tagged it as such, but I can't find anything on this page discussing it. Anyway, I'll talk:
Merge Organizr's article is a stub at best and is only relevant to Flickr Sean Hayford O'Leary 07:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge No reason not to. Kevin 08:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. I tagged the articles, and still think it's a good idea. - EurekaLott 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge Agree with everyone else that posted, there is no reason to have a separate article for Organizr, it is mentioned adequately in the Flickr article. NeilDespres 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge - per above. Jbetak 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If it says This photo is public. does that mean it is okay for a Wiki article? Forever young 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How is 'Flickr'pronounced? I assumed 'flicker' till I recently heard 'flick - r'.
It's definitely "flicker".
"Interestingness" redirects to here. Could there be some discussion of flickr's concept of and use of interestingness?
What is the origin of this "unusual" name?
I'm not going to comment on the origins of the name, except to say that the change of spelling is most likely a result of available domain names. Tom Coates 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree the see also list needs cleaning up, but is it neccesary to remove _all_ the other photo hosting sites? Maybe just trim it down to the other 2-3 other biggest ones. Shogun 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain their image retention policy. A free account allows only the most recent 200 images in the photostream. What happens when I add number 201? Is the number 1 image deleted? or stored there and I just can no longer see it? I dont want to add more images if they are going to be deleted. If you know the answer write me and add it to the article. I have been backing up all my Wikipedia images there, to protect them from delettion. Here is their written policy:
Upgrade to a Pro Account for just US$24.95 a year. Here's what you'll get with a Pro Account:
* 2 GB monthly upload limit * Unlimited storage * Unlimited bandwidth * Unlimited photosets * Permanent archiving of high-resolution original images * The ability to replace a photo * Ad-free browsing and sharing
Compare that to what you get with a Free Account:
* 20 MB monthly upload limit * 3 photosets * Photostream views limited to the 200 most recent images * Storage of smaller (resized) images
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The traffic statistics for Flickr on Alexa show a large jump the begining of the third week in April. What events can explain the sudden jump from a daily reach of around 5000 per million to 9000 per million or how it has remained that high after that point? Peteresch 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a page List of image hosting sites or something like it as everyone who has a favourite image hosting site goes through all the other ones and appends it to their see also list. If we make such a list we can just link to that list in the see also of each image hosting page (or just link to the category page). Shogun 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The entire list of see also competitors, etc. should be removed and links to the photo sharing and image hosting articles be provided instead. This will then clarify the different providers, and centralise the places in which links to providers are acceptable without encouraging spam links in so many different and hard to control places. Having links to every related provider, on every provider's page is not helpful. It would be acceptable to talk about key competitors and similar services but only according to the notability guidelines. I've started a related discussion on the photo sharing article. Verseguru 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps something should be included that talks about how Flickr is financed. RobertM525 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a section for statistics in this article would be really great... like number of users, number of photos, etc. Can anybody do that?
I haven't seen many recent stats regarding Flickr. However, in a recent post on the official flickr blog, it was stated, "More than 228,000,000 photos have been uploaded, with over a million new photos being added on a good day." - redjar 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "gamma" isn't commonly used in software development. Flickr uses it as a joke, to indicate that they are continually improving the service. From their FAQ: [2]
So I think the gamma software template at the top is inappropriate. It's almost a joke template that would be better suited to Uncyclopedia! Flickr is the only article that used this template (unsurprisingly). Therefore I have removed it.
I have rewritten the paragraphs discussing the gamma status to explain that it's a joke, and that Flickr is considered stable. JRawle ( Talk) 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont think it is actually "seo spam", i read the site often it isn't actually promoting itself. it isn't a company, just an info blog about search engine news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 ( talk • contribs) .
Are all the photos on flickr.com usable? Their copyright policy seems to say no, but I've seen many pictures that have been taken and used - on wikipedia and commons - some making it to featured picture status. I'm confused! - Jack (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Should the article name be "flickr" or "Flickr"? The logo on the site uses the lowercase, while other instances use the capitalization. -- 70.111.218.254 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They recently had their 3rd anniversary party on March 3rd, 2007, so why does the article say founded February 2004? Arsi 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps now that "Gamma" has been replaced with "Loves You," someone with a better understanding of uploading images than I could upload the new logo. Miss Dark 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Stewart Butterfield said, in a Flickr Central discussion on the topic, that it would only be temporary as one member of staff thought it a good idea. But at the same time, he said Gamma was meant to disappear last summer, so who knows if it'll last? MRM 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A quote from the last paragraph in the History section: "On June 13th tens of thousands of Flickr users protested the new 'restrictions' [2], claiming unwanted censorship from Flickr and Yahoo. A user group was established, with nearly 7,000 members joining up in the first 39 hours." What is the source for the number "tens of thousands"? -- Tristan Bukowski 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a new article called "Censorship by Flickr" when it contains the exact same information (copy/paste) as the main article. In fact, it contains even less information than the relevant paragraph in the Flickr article. To top it off, the name of the article is biased. The article ought to be deleted as it serves no useful function.-- Tristan Bukowski 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, Flickr IS NOT censored in Iran. Moreover the reference you are giving is pointing to China not any Muslim country. Maybe it's better to mention names of the countries that (you confidently know) are filtering Flickr, instead of just saying Muslim countries. It seems like a biased anti-muslim claim, other than a nutral informative statement. I.persian ( talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
where was image Image:Kc stadium inside.jpg taken?
Why is there no mention of the Flickr mobile offering? Mathiastck 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
why is flickr blocked on net how can we open flickr what system
How do they make money? 69.114.85.180
this article is riddled with errors. Flickr does not automatically delete accounts after 90 days of disuse and flickr is not giving 90 days of flickr pro to users migrating from yahoo! photos. 141.157.32.145 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there an official company statement that confirms this? -- 217.68.187.94 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
At the time of me posting this, there were 1789852512 pictures uploaded (1.7 billion +). This number includes deleted and private pictures I believe. You can see this by checking the URL of the last uploaded picture.-- Tristan Bukowski 12:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a flickr blog post celebrating 2 billion photos -- Paulhammond ( talk) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Flickr loves you logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Web 2.0? Bloggers? Folksonomy? Give me a break. Who wrote the introduction? An overexcited 20 years old marketing boy? I recommend getting that fixed into something serious.
217.125.117.197 14:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Just realized somewhat stupidly, that Shutterfly (which migrated my Yahoo pics to) doesn let one download their own pics without paying $20 for a DVD. I came here to read if flicker does, but no. Someone answer that, and say if any free photo service does. 100 megs is a ridiculously low limit- thats 1/10 of a load of my cameras 1g capacity, which is why i didn´t use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.3.72 ( talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Flickr does NOT offer this service, but you can use a third party application to download all your photos. Search google for "GMAN: FlickrDown" or "flickr downloader" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokoban ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahoo! Photos, the world's largest photosharing service (monthly unique users, ComScore), is undergoing an extensive revision to be released later this year. It will incorporate many new features like tags and friends lists, and is designed to bring these Web 2.0 features to a more mass market audience. Propose to delay deletion of topic until after launch - when we would expect to see more activity on this page. Darryleaton 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With all of the new features, I think it's unfair to have pages for Flickr/Picasa/Gallery/etc and not Yahoo Photos. -- Sarolite 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am confused over the actual shutdown date for Yahoo! Photos.
The email I got from them Re: shutting down Yahoo! Photos says they will close on Thursday 19 October 2007 and when I go to http://closing.photos.yahoo.com/ it says September 20, 2007? Upon actually logging in it says October 19 again?
Can anyone clarify what the actual closing date is??
Tombell12 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So far instance I have not migrated the photos which I have uploaded due to my ignorance to this announcement (Shut down of photos.yahoo.com). And now I am unable to track those uploaded photos. I tried searching in Flicker, using old links hoping that it would get redirect to the migrated link. But looks like nothing is going to help out.. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.93.198 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 April 2009
Where are the U.S. headquarters? Where is Flickr located in the U.S.? This is surprisingly missing in the article. ~ MDD 46 96 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the logo in the infobox should be enlarged. I'm going to try to do this, but I think someone more experienced should do it. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I managed to do it myself. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, a person reduced the size from 200px to 75px, saying "Whoa there! We were rendering their logo even bigger than they were rendering it themself on their website!" – see this edit. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but you might take that edit into consideration. Dreamyshade ( talk) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to search for pictures on Flickr that have certain license? For example...if I was searching for a picture of someone, is there a way to enter in the search "Non-Copyrighted Pictures Only" so that the Copyrighted (All Rights Reserved) pictures don't show up? Thanks, Smuckers It has to be good 07:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see data on the percentage of each license used - All rights reserved, and the CC licenses. This would go well on a pie graph of something like that. How can one find this out though? Maybe we would have to email Flickr to get this info? But then that wouldn't be verifiable would it? Richard001 ( talk) 08:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Flickr is playing it's own judge deleting many individual accounts with or without warning. They don't give a reason assuming the rules are clear. Specialy on hot subjects as nude, sex and voyeur pictures it's clear that Flickr rules are not clear at all: allowing an enormous voyeur, candid society at it's pages and rigourously deleting others that don't seen to differ from the others. Asking a refund for a payed for account is useless so to my opinion Flickr steals money. I was deleted three times by Flickr and I know how it feels when some anonymous takes it all away. Nowhere to complain. For that reason I started an account about deleted members: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34145411@N08/ that Flickr immideatly blocked from public searches. Are they scared? Is this censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 ( talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) The latest news is they changed the personal deleted page to an anonymous one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 ( talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
can we have an update on the ad lawsuit because the link from the "may 2008" reference http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/
shows lots more stuff has happened since then ........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.61.139 ( talk) 02:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This article does not seem to explain anything about ProAccount or whether one must pay to upload photos to Flickr. Can anybody add that information? Thank you. sentausa ( talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Are flickr images free; creative commons or public domain or whatever? Can they be used on Wikipedia w/out an extensive rationale? Daniel Christensen ( talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone in Flickr doing anything to have more variety in the Flickr homepage photos? The same photos (most of them are good, by the way) have appeared for the past 3 years over and over again! Surely out of all the millions of photos on Flickr, other photographers deserve to be featured on one of the most prime pieces of land for photographers on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.207.246 ( talk) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Who provides the backend storage for flickr? Do we know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.79.238 ( talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If you check the source article, the account undelete section seems a little bit plagiarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"The core functionality of the site relies on standard HTML and HTTP features, allowing for wide compatibility among platforms and browsers." Umm... it's a web site? Seems waffly. -- 82.39.212.232 ( talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ebaychatter0 ( talk) 08:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the term Magic donkey redirects here, and was unfamiliar with the term and assumed that it was some hidden vandalism; apparently, however, people do actually use the term. The article contains no mention of it, but I think it would make an interesting addition as a small section.
So, I pose two questions: 1) do others think that it'd be appropriate to include it in this page, and 2) does anyone have more information about how the algorithm works? I haven't been able to find much reliable information about it. Zujua ( talk) 04:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said upon the announcement of the new Flickr: “There’s no such thing as Flickr Pro today because [with so many people taking photographs] there’s really no such thing as professional photographers anymore.”" - this was sourced to a blog, and I can't find the original quote, just a lot of echo. Googling for pages that contain the first part of the sentence but not the bracketed elision I just get eight people summarising the quote differently. I've cut the quote pending a reliable source. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added the details of the controversy relating to the redesign to the article. If anyone could help expand it, that would be great. Thanks! CaffeinAddict ( talk) 15:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've cut "Powazek called this move a dishonest betrayal of customers and Flickr's communities." because this seemed a bit strong as a summary of his blog post - he certainly doesn't use the term "dishonest betrayal" anywhere in it. -- McGeddon ( talk) 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The whole section needs to be rewritten if not completely nuked. The writers seem to have systematically sought out all the negative articles about the redesign, and only the negative articles about the redesign, to create the impression that there is some universal disgust with the redesign. That's simply not true. It hasn't even fluttered to a mention on Techmeme, and nearly all the articles cited are from lightly-read news sources. This is the worst kind of slanted article, one designed to give the illusion of impartiality but upon closer inspection authored by a few people with an obvious agenda. Jakerome ( talk) 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Removed the sentence about the Alexa ranking since it's a primary source reference. The lack of notability is best demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't been reference in any tech or mainstream publication. It also goes to balance, with the same author continuing to add only negative references to the redesign while there is very little about the positive mainstream coverage the site redesign has received from David Pogue and others. Jakerome ( talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
We can't combine Stutz's quote of "tens of thousands of mournful complaints pile up in the Help forum" with the Vancouver Sun's "Flickr’s Help Forum was inundated with criticism over the changes, although some users said they liked the new look" to write that "tens of thousands of complaints were posted on the Flickr help forums about the redesign" because - purely from these sources - we don't know what the tens of thousands of users who didn't like the new look were objecting to (they may also have been objecting to the pricing changes, or the advertising, or Flickr's apparent attitude, or who knows what).
But really I think we can throw the Stutz quote out as a low-editorial-control WP:NEWSBLOG - he has glanced at the forum, seen tens of thousands of comments, and assumed that every last one of them is a "mournful complaint". In reality, checking any random page of the the forum thread turns up a lot of back-and-forth chatter between users. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the Pogue quote in the 2013 redesign section needs to be reworded or have another source that counter-balances the argument that Flickr users have a right to complain about their payed service being changed. As it stands, it only shows one argument on that side and is not WP:NPOV. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 12:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
definitively not unique, because smugmug.com does it too (for a price though). plus as everybody should know, there is no such thing as unlimited storage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenarslan ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 10 July 2006
http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/#65 Details about upload limits etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yy-bo ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 2 September 2006
Can we have a photo of the offending ad? As I understand, derivative works using the CC license should also be licensed the same way (like the GFDL?) so the Ad itself should be free. :D Shrumster ( talk)
Google also shows flickr pages especially when searching for screen names and owner names. But this does not mean that searching the words in flickr photo titles or tags that flickr pages will show up. I don't understand the second sentence and think it is ungrammatical. Can somebody work out what it means and tidy it up? 86.142.150.252 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How is the location of the servers relevant? Is the US location and Patriot act discussion called out for all web sites served out of the US? That makes little sense.
If I recall correctly, when Flickr started out, the servers were located in Canada. They (or the data on them) were then moved to a location in the United States, which may have had some relevance as far as copyright laws, etc. -Pat 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
External link: [ NIPSA] Topics:
RomeoOscarBravo 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of 3rd party Flick tools and utilities on the web, it would be a good idea to list the best of those utilities and tools with links and describe them in this article
Can anyone provide a list of similar sites, or provide examples? The ability to compare/contrast with other sites might help this article. - [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 00:25, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC).
Pikasa springs to mind. Its Hello thing is used to post photos on to blogs. I don't know too much about it and I'm a bit short of time at the moment, but if this article survives, I'll bring some of that information. One of the big pluses of flickr, apparently, is the ease of putting up photos compared with others -- anyone who's tried to use MSN Photos can attest to the benefit of that -- you can email a photo into your part of the album. Dr Zen 01:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So the best examples so far is one Windows-only application from Google, and two "neat features" added to major portals (Yahoo and MSN). In contrast, Flickr's core functionality is entirely web-based and accessible and it is a standalone site dedicated to this function.
Someone in the VfD claimed that they had used "every single one of these from Canada to the UK" or something like that, and I wasn't aware there was such a glut.
There are of course also the moblogging sites, but they aren't doing what Flickr does either. They provide you with a means to send annotated photos from your cellphone or other mobility method as a means of visually chronicling your life. You could do that with Flickr, but its main use is to collect your photos, organize them, catalog them, and display them publicly or share them with others.
What bugs me is how much I've used Flickr recently to find CC images for use in WP, with some successes, and it's deemed non-notable.
Another things that occurs to me: Theoretically, if something really is a good thing, and really does have numerous good qualities, it won't pass the encyclopedic sniff test because it appears to be unbalanced marketing.
- [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 01:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
It's pointless getting worked up over it. It won't be the first or last thing of genuine notability that gets cut. Here's a product that is in use by thousands at least of users, that you meet every day if you surf blogs, that has currency throughout the interwebnet, and it's "not notable" because some guy doesn't do those things. I've no idea, btw, what the "offerings" from Canada etc are. The guy didn't feel the need to actually name any.
I'm not sure that listing good features actually does appear to be unbalanced marketing. It's perfectly neutral (because "features" are "good features" by definition). The excuse for deletion is that it's an "ad", but, for instance, saying that a reason for MS Word's popularity is its integration with other MS packages is not "advertising" Word but pointing out a truth about it! The policy doesn't include any standard for decision (ultimately the thing that upsets Jscott, I think) and individuals use coded language to dismiss what they personally don't want in. Still, nothing is preventing anyone from providing more balance by listing what Flickr lacks! Dr Zen 02:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zooomr is a similar site, just throwing that out there.
Arsi
00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone added Category:Social networking. I'm not aware that Flickr is a tool for social networking. Is it? Discuss. - Keith D. Tyler [ flame 01:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Can sb expand this section or explain to me how to verify if flickr images are licensed under a license compatibile with Wiki/Commons? I looked over a few but all I see is the text '© All rights reserved.' in the lower right corner, with no hyperlink to specific license. This doesn't look like CC or anything 'good' to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know how many photo are currently on flickr? -- 84.93.133.8 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The most recent figure I heard (early 2007) they were getting at least ten times that (2 million a day). 199.172.169.7 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm a bit behind the times - I have fond memories of upgrading my Atari ST from 520kb to an impressive 1024kb - but I believe the article would benefit from a short mention of the technical aspects of the site; Flickr seems to be taking off more and more, and I wouldn't bet against it cracking the billion-photo mark by the end of this year. It must have servers the size of NASA and it must cost a huge amount to run, yet it is free. - Ashley Pomeroy 12:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The site is usable with either flash or AJAX to upload / contribute. It's usable in plain HTML to browse / search. 129.67.100.122 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody tagged it as such, but I can't find anything on this page discussing it. Anyway, I'll talk:
Merge Organizr's article is a stub at best and is only relevant to Flickr Sean Hayford O'Leary 07:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge No reason not to. Kevin 08:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. I tagged the articles, and still think it's a good idea. - EurekaLott 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge Agree with everyone else that posted, there is no reason to have a separate article for Organizr, it is mentioned adequately in the Flickr article. NeilDespres 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge - per above. Jbetak 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If it says This photo is public. does that mean it is okay for a Wiki article? Forever young 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How is 'Flickr'pronounced? I assumed 'flicker' till I recently heard 'flick - r'.
It's definitely "flicker".
"Interestingness" redirects to here. Could there be some discussion of flickr's concept of and use of interestingness?
What is the origin of this "unusual" name?
I'm not going to comment on the origins of the name, except to say that the change of spelling is most likely a result of available domain names. Tom Coates 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree the see also list needs cleaning up, but is it neccesary to remove _all_ the other photo hosting sites? Maybe just trim it down to the other 2-3 other biggest ones. Shogun 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain their image retention policy. A free account allows only the most recent 200 images in the photostream. What happens when I add number 201? Is the number 1 image deleted? or stored there and I just can no longer see it? I dont want to add more images if they are going to be deleted. If you know the answer write me and add it to the article. I have been backing up all my Wikipedia images there, to protect them from delettion. Here is their written policy:
Upgrade to a Pro Account for just US$24.95 a year. Here's what you'll get with a Pro Account:
* 2 GB monthly upload limit * Unlimited storage * Unlimited bandwidth * Unlimited photosets * Permanent archiving of high-resolution original images * The ability to replace a photo * Ad-free browsing and sharing
Compare that to what you get with a Free Account:
* 20 MB monthly upload limit * 3 photosets * Photostream views limited to the 200 most recent images * Storage of smaller (resized) images
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The traffic statistics for Flickr on Alexa show a large jump the begining of the third week in April. What events can explain the sudden jump from a daily reach of around 5000 per million to 9000 per million or how it has remained that high after that point? Peteresch 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a page List of image hosting sites or something like it as everyone who has a favourite image hosting site goes through all the other ones and appends it to their see also list. If we make such a list we can just link to that list in the see also of each image hosting page (or just link to the category page). Shogun 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The entire list of see also competitors, etc. should be removed and links to the photo sharing and image hosting articles be provided instead. This will then clarify the different providers, and centralise the places in which links to providers are acceptable without encouraging spam links in so many different and hard to control places. Having links to every related provider, on every provider's page is not helpful. It would be acceptable to talk about key competitors and similar services but only according to the notability guidelines. I've started a related discussion on the photo sharing article. Verseguru 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps something should be included that talks about how Flickr is financed. RobertM525 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a section for statistics in this article would be really great... like number of users, number of photos, etc. Can anybody do that?
I haven't seen many recent stats regarding Flickr. However, in a recent post on the official flickr blog, it was stated, "More than 228,000,000 photos have been uploaded, with over a million new photos being added on a good day." - redjar 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "gamma" isn't commonly used in software development. Flickr uses it as a joke, to indicate that they are continually improving the service. From their FAQ: [2]
So I think the gamma software template at the top is inappropriate. It's almost a joke template that would be better suited to Uncyclopedia! Flickr is the only article that used this template (unsurprisingly). Therefore I have removed it.
I have rewritten the paragraphs discussing the gamma status to explain that it's a joke, and that Flickr is considered stable. JRawle ( Talk) 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont think it is actually "seo spam", i read the site often it isn't actually promoting itself. it isn't a company, just an info blog about search engine news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 ( talk • contribs) .
Are all the photos on flickr.com usable? Their copyright policy seems to say no, but I've seen many pictures that have been taken and used - on wikipedia and commons - some making it to featured picture status. I'm confused! - Jack (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Should the article name be "flickr" or "Flickr"? The logo on the site uses the lowercase, while other instances use the capitalization. -- 70.111.218.254 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They recently had their 3rd anniversary party on March 3rd, 2007, so why does the article say founded February 2004? Arsi 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps now that "Gamma" has been replaced with "Loves You," someone with a better understanding of uploading images than I could upload the new logo. Miss Dark 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Stewart Butterfield said, in a Flickr Central discussion on the topic, that it would only be temporary as one member of staff thought it a good idea. But at the same time, he said Gamma was meant to disappear last summer, so who knows if it'll last? MRM 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A quote from the last paragraph in the History section: "On June 13th tens of thousands of Flickr users protested the new 'restrictions' [2], claiming unwanted censorship from Flickr and Yahoo. A user group was established, with nearly 7,000 members joining up in the first 39 hours." What is the source for the number "tens of thousands"? -- Tristan Bukowski 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a new article called "Censorship by Flickr" when it contains the exact same information (copy/paste) as the main article. In fact, it contains even less information than the relevant paragraph in the Flickr article. To top it off, the name of the article is biased. The article ought to be deleted as it serves no useful function.-- Tristan Bukowski 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, Flickr IS NOT censored in Iran. Moreover the reference you are giving is pointing to China not any Muslim country. Maybe it's better to mention names of the countries that (you confidently know) are filtering Flickr, instead of just saying Muslim countries. It seems like a biased anti-muslim claim, other than a nutral informative statement. I.persian ( talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
where was image Image:Kc stadium inside.jpg taken?
Why is there no mention of the Flickr mobile offering? Mathiastck 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
why is flickr blocked on net how can we open flickr what system
How do they make money? 69.114.85.180
this article is riddled with errors. Flickr does not automatically delete accounts after 90 days of disuse and flickr is not giving 90 days of flickr pro to users migrating from yahoo! photos. 141.157.32.145 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there an official company statement that confirms this? -- 217.68.187.94 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
At the time of me posting this, there were 1789852512 pictures uploaded (1.7 billion +). This number includes deleted and private pictures I believe. You can see this by checking the URL of the last uploaded picture.-- Tristan Bukowski 12:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a flickr blog post celebrating 2 billion photos -- Paulhammond ( talk) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Flickr loves you logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Web 2.0? Bloggers? Folksonomy? Give me a break. Who wrote the introduction? An overexcited 20 years old marketing boy? I recommend getting that fixed into something serious.
217.125.117.197 14:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Just realized somewhat stupidly, that Shutterfly (which migrated my Yahoo pics to) doesn let one download their own pics without paying $20 for a DVD. I came here to read if flicker does, but no. Someone answer that, and say if any free photo service does. 100 megs is a ridiculously low limit- thats 1/10 of a load of my cameras 1g capacity, which is why i didn´t use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.3.72 ( talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Flickr does NOT offer this service, but you can use a third party application to download all your photos. Search google for "GMAN: FlickrDown" or "flickr downloader" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokoban ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahoo! Photos, the world's largest photosharing service (monthly unique users, ComScore), is undergoing an extensive revision to be released later this year. It will incorporate many new features like tags and friends lists, and is designed to bring these Web 2.0 features to a more mass market audience. Propose to delay deletion of topic until after launch - when we would expect to see more activity on this page. Darryleaton 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With all of the new features, I think it's unfair to have pages for Flickr/Picasa/Gallery/etc and not Yahoo Photos. -- Sarolite 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am confused over the actual shutdown date for Yahoo! Photos.
The email I got from them Re: shutting down Yahoo! Photos says they will close on Thursday 19 October 2007 and when I go to http://closing.photos.yahoo.com/ it says September 20, 2007? Upon actually logging in it says October 19 again?
Can anyone clarify what the actual closing date is??
Tombell12 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So far instance I have not migrated the photos which I have uploaded due to my ignorance to this announcement (Shut down of photos.yahoo.com). And now I am unable to track those uploaded photos. I tried searching in Flicker, using old links hoping that it would get redirect to the migrated link. But looks like nothing is going to help out.. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.93.198 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 April 2009
Where are the U.S. headquarters? Where is Flickr located in the U.S.? This is surprisingly missing in the article. ~ MDD 46 96 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the logo in the infobox should be enlarged. I'm going to try to do this, but I think someone more experienced should do it. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I managed to do it myself. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, a person reduced the size from 200px to 75px, saying "Whoa there! We were rendering their logo even bigger than they were rendering it themself on their website!" – see this edit. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but you might take that edit into consideration. Dreamyshade ( talk) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to search for pictures on Flickr that have certain license? For example...if I was searching for a picture of someone, is there a way to enter in the search "Non-Copyrighted Pictures Only" so that the Copyrighted (All Rights Reserved) pictures don't show up? Thanks, Smuckers It has to be good 07:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see data on the percentage of each license used - All rights reserved, and the CC licenses. This would go well on a pie graph of something like that. How can one find this out though? Maybe we would have to email Flickr to get this info? But then that wouldn't be verifiable would it? Richard001 ( talk) 08:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Flickr is playing it's own judge deleting many individual accounts with or without warning. They don't give a reason assuming the rules are clear. Specialy on hot subjects as nude, sex and voyeur pictures it's clear that Flickr rules are not clear at all: allowing an enormous voyeur, candid society at it's pages and rigourously deleting others that don't seen to differ from the others. Asking a refund for a payed for account is useless so to my opinion Flickr steals money. I was deleted three times by Flickr and I know how it feels when some anonymous takes it all away. Nowhere to complain. For that reason I started an account about deleted members: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34145411@N08/ that Flickr immideatly blocked from public searches. Are they scared? Is this censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 ( talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) The latest news is they changed the personal deleted page to an anonymous one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 ( talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
can we have an update on the ad lawsuit because the link from the "may 2008" reference http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/
shows lots more stuff has happened since then ........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.61.139 ( talk) 02:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This article does not seem to explain anything about ProAccount or whether one must pay to upload photos to Flickr. Can anybody add that information? Thank you. sentausa ( talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Are flickr images free; creative commons or public domain or whatever? Can they be used on Wikipedia w/out an extensive rationale? Daniel Christensen ( talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone in Flickr doing anything to have more variety in the Flickr homepage photos? The same photos (most of them are good, by the way) have appeared for the past 3 years over and over again! Surely out of all the millions of photos on Flickr, other photographers deserve to be featured on one of the most prime pieces of land for photographers on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.207.246 ( talk) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Who provides the backend storage for flickr? Do we know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.79.238 ( talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If you check the source article, the account undelete section seems a little bit plagiarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"The core functionality of the site relies on standard HTML and HTTP features, allowing for wide compatibility among platforms and browsers." Umm... it's a web site? Seems waffly. -- 82.39.212.232 ( talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ebaychatter0 ( talk) 08:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the term Magic donkey redirects here, and was unfamiliar with the term and assumed that it was some hidden vandalism; apparently, however, people do actually use the term. The article contains no mention of it, but I think it would make an interesting addition as a small section.
So, I pose two questions: 1) do others think that it'd be appropriate to include it in this page, and 2) does anyone have more information about how the algorithm works? I haven't been able to find much reliable information about it. Zujua ( talk) 04:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said upon the announcement of the new Flickr: “There’s no such thing as Flickr Pro today because [with so many people taking photographs] there’s really no such thing as professional photographers anymore.”" - this was sourced to a blog, and I can't find the original quote, just a lot of echo. Googling for pages that contain the first part of the sentence but not the bracketed elision I just get eight people summarising the quote differently. I've cut the quote pending a reliable source. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added the details of the controversy relating to the redesign to the article. If anyone could help expand it, that would be great. Thanks! CaffeinAddict ( talk) 15:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've cut "Powazek called this move a dishonest betrayal of customers and Flickr's communities." because this seemed a bit strong as a summary of his blog post - he certainly doesn't use the term "dishonest betrayal" anywhere in it. -- McGeddon ( talk) 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The whole section needs to be rewritten if not completely nuked. The writers seem to have systematically sought out all the negative articles about the redesign, and only the negative articles about the redesign, to create the impression that there is some universal disgust with the redesign. That's simply not true. It hasn't even fluttered to a mention on Techmeme, and nearly all the articles cited are from lightly-read news sources. This is the worst kind of slanted article, one designed to give the illusion of impartiality but upon closer inspection authored by a few people with an obvious agenda. Jakerome ( talk) 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Removed the sentence about the Alexa ranking since it's a primary source reference. The lack of notability is best demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't been reference in any tech or mainstream publication. It also goes to balance, with the same author continuing to add only negative references to the redesign while there is very little about the positive mainstream coverage the site redesign has received from David Pogue and others. Jakerome ( talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
We can't combine Stutz's quote of "tens of thousands of mournful complaints pile up in the Help forum" with the Vancouver Sun's "Flickr’s Help Forum was inundated with criticism over the changes, although some users said they liked the new look" to write that "tens of thousands of complaints were posted on the Flickr help forums about the redesign" because - purely from these sources - we don't know what the tens of thousands of users who didn't like the new look were objecting to (they may also have been objecting to the pricing changes, or the advertising, or Flickr's apparent attitude, or who knows what).
But really I think we can throw the Stutz quote out as a low-editorial-control WP:NEWSBLOG - he has glanced at the forum, seen tens of thousands of comments, and assumed that every last one of them is a "mournful complaint". In reality, checking any random page of the the forum thread turns up a lot of back-and-forth chatter between users. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the Pogue quote in the 2013 redesign section needs to be reworded or have another source that counter-balances the argument that Flickr users have a right to complain about their payed service being changed. As it stands, it only shows one argument on that side and is not WP:NPOV. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 12:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)