341–350 of 384 posts
I imagine I am not alone here, but I actually can't find out how much space I am currently using 4,000+ photos. Looked on the stats page, but nothing there regarding the number of MB/GB used. Any ideas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a pro user, but I don't have a recurring subscription, I just rebuy it every 2 years, now I'm going to have to pay double for no ads, seems like I got screwed most of all.
I'm in the same boat. Also, the narcissist in me will miss the stats feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the scale that Yahoo runs, 1TB is considerably cheaper than $67/TB. Remember that places like Yahoo and Google operate at levels where a file service issues a monitoring warning if there's less than a petabyte left.
True, but aren't they 'supposed' to buy high grade HDDs for datacenter usage?
The Android app STILL does not provide automatic upload. That is the only thing I want or need from the Android app - I backup images I take on my phone, and make public the few that I want to share. So now I use Google+. But I have years of photos on Flickr, so I'd still like to switch back. I really don't understand why it's missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Flickr TOS say you can't have a business account. http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157626812125880/ I've seen nothing that says that's changed.
That is a random comment in a forum from someone who doesn't represent Flickr. The actual TOS make no mention of whether you can have a business account or not. In face the best practices page specifically provides guidelines for businesses. "This guide is intended to help organizations—such as businesses, groups and non-profits—get the most out of Flickr." http://www.flickr.com/bestpractices/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel a betrayed, too. I really don't understand why the plan went up in price and has less features. I have the attitude that I want to store (indefinitely), search and link my photos without being visually distracted with ads or pagination limits. In 7 years of using Flickr, I've only uploaded about 30GB of photos mostly just for archival use. Only a small group of Flickr users curate more than 20k photos. Most of…
So why did they go for storage instead of pumping the features with premium subscriptions. It's more impressive. Storage is easy to add and increase. Just throw more harddisk at it. This not not the case with features (how do you reliably double your features?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that it's not just that you don't see ads; it's also that others don't see ads on your photos. The latter can be an important feature for those who use Flickr to create professional portfolios.
The original pro account removed ads while browsing the site, Not from your pages as viewed by others. Plus a lot of the time your Photos are submitted to groups, would adds be removed every time one of your pictures turned up on the page? Pretty sure it is not a business feature to show a clean page but a viewer option for distraction free viewing.
I'm a Pro subscriber and I applaud them for starting to improve Flickr. However, $49.99 a year just for the privilege of getting no ads? Compared to the $25 people pay for Pro accounts, that's way overblown. And yes, compared to cloud storage, given 1 TB of storage, this is rather cheap. However, considering that this storage can only be used for photos and videos and that most of these photos and videos are meant to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give it time. That is the archetypical reaction of a user being confronted by change (angry is else hard to explain). Flickr's job isn't that easy to be defined. It serves many purposes: Being able to upload and store images there, to organize them, but also to view them of course. Having a new UI putting the images first seems quite reasonable given that definition of flickr. Besides, the old interface was neither s…
"Give it time." Flickr was in need of a facelift, but not a complete overhaul. This just seems to me like a rehash of Delicious (the difference being that Flickr is still a part of Yahoo): redesign the whole thing to make it more "social" and "hip" and lose what made it a great service in the process. Delicious is still awful compared to what it was even under Yahoo's governance and I don't think Flickr is going to r…
I don't know if Flickr really neded just a facelift. The overhaul signals more strongly that Flickr no longer stagnates. It could be that it was indeed a needed one, given the age of the old interface. It could be that they needed that overhaul to get tumblr, to show them thay aint the old Yahoo no more. Who knows.
I agree that it gives the impression of wanting to be more hip and social, but I think that's good if the userbase was in decline before. I think that the lack of a beta and the possibility to give feedback before makes this so hard for existing users.
Delicious was something else, I think. I was under the impression that after their changes, some of the old use-cases weren't supported anymore? What is the new Flickr missing exactly, apart from tiny images as default, strange workflow to get the real image or at least bigger sizes, and ugly menus?
I know that the old Flickr wasn't a place I enjoyed. I used it mainly to get images for a program of mine. Don't think I will be a heavy user of the new one, but for my use case, it sure looks better now (iff the extended search for CC-licenced images still works).