When did they change the Flickr site and why is it so stupid now?

Does Facebook even have a limit to number of photos you upload?

How you can take 700 pictures of Edinburgh is beyond me, but to upload them to Facebook is bonkers.

Flickr is still the best social option for amateur photographers (or even pro) who want other people to see their work - Facebook and Google+ always feel like you're posting a bunch of pictures for your friends and even they aren't going to look at them.

yup - i put up far fewer photos on flickr than fb def!

well if you put photos on google+ definitely no one is going to look at them

I used flickr to upload all my scans of grandfathers' and father's slides (covering 1945 through 1980 or so)

my wife uses it all the time

neither of us are on facebook

i would never use facebook as a place to keep photos; it's more just like an occasional mention of "here this is what i did/saw" and then flickr is where i put things to keep and look at later
i'm not A Photographer by anyone's standards but i like to take pictures of things.

Flickr is great, and I trust them w my stuff more than FB. Not that it wouldn't be easy for someone to search flickr and rip off my images, but probably less easy than with FB, and I have far more control over my stuff.

shakey I would like to see those slides if they're of nothing too personal!

Sherman G. Babcock slide archive

other two archives (of my dad's and my maternal grandfather's) are smaller

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/collections/72157626353016289/
l-r: my aunt Debbie, my dad, 1 yo me

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7060/6870382991_becc4d681d_z.jpg

that is really awesome, ty

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6022/5885234179_971a803be7_z.jpg

New Year's Eve 1961, my grandma in the middle, workin it

These look fantastic!

these are amazing, shakey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/5840039626/in/set-72157626852083549/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/6124823002/in/set-72157627610634344
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/6121197063/in/set-72157627610634344/

( http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/5614763684/in/set-72157626353725915, http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/5867374705/in/set-72157627039274412, http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/5867379469/in/set-72157627039274412/, http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/5867932566/in/set-72157627039274412, http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuababcock/5393559411/in/set-72157625793372785) okay i'm gonna stop but yeah these are so great!, even w/o personal dimension

Fantastic!

Yep, still use Flickr. I use FB for mobile uploads, the very occasional shot from the proper camera; I've also been using an album on FB for raiding the Lightroom archives - one shot per month, etc. Oh, and FB has "Family" albums which I update every 6-9 months.

FB is fine for instant feedback for single images; upload more than one photo at a time and they pass entirely without comment it seems. On the recent three-week US trip, I used FB for one or two images a day (worked up quickly in Picasa on Pam's netbook) as we went along; Flickr was always going to be the repository for the full record of holiday snaps (a few hundred, still going up in dribs and drabs).

Flickr is finally beginning to improve its look; the "justified" view of contacts' photos and the new uploader are pretty good. Yahoo very nearly killed it though.

Oh, and I'm sure there's a setting somewhere for better quality, but FB images are horribly overcompressed. Flickr has always had better compression and resizing algorithms (and now offers auto-resizing on the photostream page and a load more size options for download). G+ is apparently pretty good in this respect...but who uses that? I know there are better-looking alternatives to Flickr out there, favoured by photographers, but my entire kids' lives are on Flickr...

What's just happened? It's too much at once.

NU FLICKR

More here. Terabyte is unbelievable. I wonder if the individual limits have been raised, as I was running into them.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/20/4349442/yahoo-unveils-the-new-flickr-with-one-terabyte-of-free-space

Ugh, the new homescreen is annoying. Good for keeping up with contacts' shots at a nice big size - I like that. But <i>text</i> is badly shortchanged - new comments on my photos or ones I've been conversing about are easily lost in the tide. Wish this could be customized or something...I don't use Groups, the Commons, or the Flickr Blog at all, so the entire right-hand column is just wasted when it would be a great place to keep "Recent Activity."

what's the price per terabyte these days, feel like it must be really low, if youre buying in bulk like yahoo is maybe $20-30?

Agreed. I'm looking for an option to reduce the size of contacts' photos on my home screen, but it isn't there :\

Wait, the new plans are properly stupid. They killed the old Pro (which was unlimited storage for what, $25?) and now have three plans
Free: 1TB, Ads
$49: No ads
$499: 2TB space.

Eh? http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/

Who in the hell is going to shell out $499?!

RIP Flickr

You'd almost think Yahoo is making Flickr a non-profit thing just to lol at Google, and will try and make the big bucks with Tumblr.

it's like the same company that owns flickr owns tum oh i see.

new flickr is like new soundcloud, horrible. at least with soundcloud you can revert to the original

this looks a mess

lol $499 vs. registering a second account

i feel i must have been snubbed somehow

i dont wish to seem churlish about the storage it just seems odd in the redesign, that they left it alone for so long (and yes it was looking stale) and then changed everything in one hit instead of gradually changing to fit what the userbase wanted. right now this feels clunky and crowded

dont really have an interest in tumblr but it seems kind of like that - a bit ADD

Weird, I thought the "Stay pro or go free" box said pro had unlimited storage. It definitely said you had access to full stats, as opposed to limited stats for free.

Since May 20, 2013, Pro accounts can no longer be purchased. You can enjoy unlimited storage as long as your Pro account is active. If your Pro account expires, it will revert to a free account with a storage limit of 1 Terabyte.

So I can choose to keep my pro account with unlimited storage, but only until it expires? Great choice, thanks!

Would they have offered me a refund if I'd opted to go to a free account?

"Recurring Pro users currently have the ability to renew"

Till when? For how much? So confused!

ok if i choose to search my photostream i want to only see content from my photostream because i know it won't be nsfw.

So I pay for a 1-year Pro at $24.95 and it says "Your Pro account will renew automatically on 10th April, 2014".
Now it says "As a Pro Member, your subscription remains the same. You'll enjoy unlimited space for your photos and videos, detailed stats and an ad-free experience. However, you can switch to a Free account before August 20, 2013"

? what ?

i *think* you can either
a) stick with your auto-renewing pro account with unlimited space, stats, no ads, until such time as they decide to remove said option
ii) go free, 1tb space, no ads, uncertain about stats
3) go ad-free for twice the price of pro

ii) go free, 1tb space, ads, uncertain about stats

i dont wish to seem churlish about the storage it just seems odd in the redesign, that they left it alone for so long (and yes it was looking stale) and then changed everything in one hit instead of gradually changing to fit what the userbase wanted. right now this feels clunky and crowded

dont really have an interest in tumblr but it seems kind of like that - a bit ADD

I was going to say that from looking at the desktop version it bears all the marks of a mobile-first design and it is indeed looking a lot better on my phone than old Flickr used to. They have an Android app but that's shite.

Think it looks better full stop really.

D) move your photos somewhere else. fuck 'em

the old android app didn't support my phone, not sure why. new one claims to, but we will see.

I think I will go free and continue using my adblocker.
I will also start looking elsewhere for another decent site.

Sigh.

The per-image/per-video upload limits are tighter on Pro than they are on Free, No Ad or Doublr. But, in theory, no 1TB limit (I reckon I've got 35-40GB on there in eight years, so, unless I undertook some massive cataloguing project with a Leaf Aptus*, I doubt I'd ever threaten the Free account limit).

(* - I am available for this kind of work, reasonable rates and can I keep the gear?)

I rather wish there'd been some kind of loyalty scheme and Pro users could've just rolled on to Ad Free for a nominal sum ($10 for yr first two years if you'd had an account since 2005 or something). Losing money in direct fees vs losing money thru losing ppl.

Its definitely designed for phone/pad instead of big screen, but a reasonable percentage of userbase will be using camera+computer rather than phone (why not just use instagram otherwise?)

Despite yahoo's inability to know what to do with flickr, the community/groups aspect of it is still there and I use flickr to follow other photographers as much as anything else, so I doubt i'll go anywhere else just yet, esp with the free storage but the design is horrible and has hallmarks of belated rushed change to mimic other things

It looks fabulous! They should have done this 5 years ago.

I use a pretty hard-core ad-blocker so I don't see any reason to continue paying for this now.

They were probably losing pro users through non-renewals anyway, partly because maybe pro users actually tend not to mass upload but dripfeed, who really puts up 60+ photos in one go other than people just back from holiday and now other sites server that much better than flickr can as theyve missed the boat with that

Be interesting to see the data on that, my guess would be that the majority of users would be uploading dozens of photos in one go. Even if they're not back from holiday photos tend to build up.

The refund page isn't working for some strange reason...

I was really disappointed that all of the pics of my kids were boringly tagged "indoors"/"people"/"children"/"groupshot"/"baby"/etc

Closest I got to outrageous was a p.o.'ed looking lady at the Las Vegas Airport slot machines being labeled "Shop".

Flickr could tell from the pixels that it was a 'Shop

flickr serves it's primary function fine for me - which is sharing and archiving family photos. beyond that idgaf about it

tbh for a number of features, there are no really good photo community websites available as an alternative to flickr, even if it's stagnant as hell

I always wanted a Flickr competitor to be closer to art class critique sessions, but even 'serious' photo communities are awful at that, so I can't really fault the stagnation that much.

There are social networking sites where you can find interesting communities related to visual topics, but if I wanted to look for, say, images of brutalist architecture or a group interested in the same, I'd find a lot more stuff on flickr, instantly, than most other places outside of specialist sites.

I like Flickr because it allows you to store big-ass full-resolution images.

Checked out the tags on some of my drawings, nothing egregious although one of them was tagged 'ancient surreal cartoon', which wasn't quite what i was going for.

Staff have, with rather little fanfare, introduced an option to not have tags display on your stream (or see them on other people's): https://www.flickr.com/account/prefs/autotags They're still there and still affect searches - pretty annoying when you're trying to search your own stuff - and it also still defaults to "on," which is pretty stupid given the number of dormant, deceased, or simply unknowing users whose work has been affected. But at least it means my stream no longer looks like it was tagged by a psychotic ignoramus. No word yet on whether or in what way they'll honor the earlier promise to introduce a way of actually batch-deleting the things.

Flickr acquired by professional photo hosting service SmugMug

I am excited. Though SmugMug are waaaaaay out of their depth. It’s like Be buying Apple in 1997

Hey, maybe they can help me re-access my photos after Yahoo ate my password like a bunch of dopes.

I feel like this has to be good news - certainly beats it just being one of two dozen properties acquired by Verizon when they bought Yahoo. That felt extremely tenuous, like I was just waiting for the day I'd load up the site and find they'd just discontinued it or turned it into an online gambling portal or god knows what. At least SmugMug are photo people and it would be hard for anything they do to be worse than any of the changes made in the last half-decade.

I think it’s a decent fit. I think SmugMug is still independent and owned by one of the dudes who was big into the Quake community when I was in like... 1996. Seems like they’ve kept a niche active for years and have an actual interest in delivering a consistent product

New owner making all the right noises on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16888876

audiometry 12 hours ago [ -]

Don— I was a paying customer too. Then Flickr changed their login, forcing me to get a yahoo account, which I then lost over time. So for years now, my account, and all the photos of my 1-3yo kid are buried and locked behind the “you need (login) and pay premium access to see all your photos”. All because that stupid yahoo login integration. Unrecoverable.

reply


onethumb 12 hours ago [ -]

I will move heaven and earth to solve this for you. We're moving off of Yahoo Auth as soon as we can, but can likely fix before that (which will take awhile). Raising this up the flag pole.

heroes

"FINAL NOTICE: You are in violation of our free account limits."

they've nerfed the free accounts, only 50 "friends and family" photos now. i've deleted all the ones even vaguely personal, literally anything with a person in it, but still, that language...

When I kepot getting those emails I just thought FUCK YOU and deleted everything, they can go fuck themselves.