flickr

[sm4him]

I had JUST renewed mine, days before they changed it. I hate it. Hate. It. It's awful--I hate the new layout, and I hate trying to find anything I was used to seeing, and...I just hate it. Alright, I admit it. What I actually hate is that it's different--because that's change, and I hate change.

But I won't be ditching it for something else, because...I hate change. :lmao:

I'm kidding...kinda. I really *don't* like change, and I really *don't* like the new layout, but I'm not quite THAT phobic about it. I just figure...most of my stuff is already there, and already semi-organized. I'll give it at least six months and see how things pan out. And I'm keeping my "Account Formerly Known as Pro" status simply for the unlikely possibility that, if this all goes badly for them, they may backpedal on things, or end up offering some new "Pro"-equivalent account that I can lock into at my current rate...and if not, meh, I'm only out $25. Also, I'm so ADD that there's very little chance I'd ever remember to go in and request a refund anyway.

 

[Dikkie]

You can still view the photostreams in the old layout style:

Just by adding "?details=1" after your url:

Flickr: Dirk Desmet's Photostream

But for how long we will be able to do that...

 

[mitchota]

I'm not a fan of the new layout, but it could just be that I'm not used to it yet. I do appreciate the terabyte of storage, and I got a bit of a refund from them since I canceled my pro account after reading through the changes.

Now that I'm using Flickr for free, I'm just going to ride it out and see what happens.

 

[Railphotog]

I had many albums on Yahoo Photos, and when they bought Flickr they changed all the albums to their site. Worked fine, nothing for me to do. After a year I received a note from Flickr saying my free one year Pro account was ending, and if I wanted to keep the photos there I would need to pay for a Pro account. I did not recall them stating this would happen when they took over. I deleted all my photos, having no interest in paying for storage.

Now with a terabyte of supposedly "free" storage, I may look into them again. I uploaded several photos to the new site just as a place keeper. But I'm assuming they'll go the way of many other "free" hosting sites that I've used in the past - when they find out they aren't making money hand over fist on their service, we will all get a message saying something like "In order to improve our service, you now must pay..." Seen that too many times to assume it won't happen here again.

I've been waiting for this to happen on Photobucket since Google took them over. They've been changing things around, not for the better and I cringe the day when they lower the "fee" hammer. Nothing much in life is free I guess.

 

[Helen B]

I'm undecided. I have a pro account that I had just renewed for two years, and I managed a pro account for a company who used it as a low maintenance repository for high res images of their stuff that was free to use by bloggers, magazines etc. (not for sales, only as a convenient, easily accessible image library). I would rather be a paid member of a site that had no adverts than a free member of a site that had adverts. I don't want to send people to a site that has adverts so I will probably leave, and recommend that my client does the same.

 

[bhop]

I hated it at first, but it's starting to grow on me.. or at least it would be if they had the loading issues i've been having worked out.

 

[grafxman]

I glad some folks are happy with flickr's new look. I'm not and here's why. Before I go anywhere, especially somewhere new to me, I search flickr to see what I might expect when I get there. In the old days flickr would have displayed a page full of thumbnails and at the bottom of that page there would be a list of sequential page numbers. Many locations would have dozens of pages. I would look at the first 10 or 15 pages on one day then come back the next day and pick up where I left off with page 15 or whatever. Now I can't do that. I'm simply inundated with a river of photos that are not in any particular order. If I try to come back the next day I have to swim through the molasses like river of photos and try to find where I left off. I'm pretty sure the old format kept photos in reverse order by date. This new river of photos doesn't do that. I just checked one of my favorite spots, Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area and there are 2012 photos and 2010 photos all mixed together. It's totally disorganized and disorderly. I wish someone would fire whoever did this and return to the old format.

BTW, I know about that "?details=1" trick however it doesn't work on searches.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think the new layout has too many large photos of all different sizes right next to each other which seems disorganized visually. That style seems to be the latest thing but I don't think it works. There's a reason in a museum or gallery why space is left in between the artwork, it's to give your eyes a space to rest before viewing the next one.

I didn't have much on there anyway so thinned out my page and left a few photos displayed and will see what happens. There's an active group I follow and participate in and will continue to do that.

 

[TCampbell]

I glad some folks are happy with flickr's new look. I'm not and here's why. Before I go anywhere, especially somewhere new to me, I search flickr to see what I might expect when I get there.

There's an app called "Stuck on Earth" that you might enjoy. It appears to be mostly oriented toward photographers who like to travel and go exploring. They use a "Stuck On Earth" group on Flickr (you only have to join it if you want to submit photos to the app). The photos submitted must be geo-tagged.

The app then uses a Google maps/Earth type interface allowing you to go to locations, but it will show you all the images taken in that area. It's an interesting way to see what's around.

Stuck on Earth runs on iOS and Android devices.

And of course for regular computers, Google Earth will overlay images.

 

[bhop]

... I'm pretty sure the old format kept photos in reverse order by date. This new river of photos doesn't do that. I just checked one of my favorite spots, Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area and there are 2012 photos and 2010 photos all mixed together. It's totally disorganized and disorderly....

There's a little "sort" button that'll show the recent photos first. The default is "relevance", which is how the old version of the site was as well, but you can switch it to 'recent' .. this doesn't help with the giant stream, but at least they'll be in upload order.

 

[DarkShadow]

Does any one notice when you play the pictures so they scroll automatic it starts going to fast before fully viewing the image. :scratch: If I recall it seemed there was a longer delay in between then some how turbo kicked in.

 

[grafxman]

... I'm pretty sure the old format kept photos in reverse order by date. This new river of photos doesn't do that. I just checked one of my favorite spots, Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area and there are 2012 photos and 2010 photos all mixed together. It's totally disorganized and disorderly....

There's a little "sort" button that'll show the recent photos first. The default is "relevance", which is how the old version of the site was as well, but you can switch it to 'recent' .. this doesn't help with the giant stream, but at least they'll be in upload order.

Actually they're not in order by date when recent is selected. I just checked a Dinner Island Ranch WMA search and there are some January photos followed by mine shot in March which are followed by some more photos shot in January. So in other words, if I'm going to visit a wildlife area and search flickr to see what people have been photographing for the past several months there, the search is just about useless unless I laboriously check the date of every photo. I can no longer rely on flickr to provide me with the excellent information it used to provide me with. Like I keep saying flickr is wrecked, for me at least, with this new interface.

 

[bhop]

Actually they're not in order by date when recent is selected. I just checked a Dinner Island Ranch WMA search and there are some January photos followed by mine shot in March which are followed by some more photos shot in January. So in other words, if I'm going to visit a wildlife area and search flickr to see what people have been photographing for the past several months there, the search is just about useless unless I laboriously check the date of every photo. I can no longer rely on flickr to provide me with the excellent information it used to provide me with. Like I keep saying flickr is wrecked, for me at least, with this new interface.

That's weird because I tested it before I posted earlier and on my computer here at work they are listed by date.. *shrug..

 

[table1349]

I hated it at first, but it's starting to grow on me.. or at least it would be if they had the loading issues i've been having worked out.

Gee, I used to say the same thing about a fungus infection back in 1973 while on a little jaunt in South East Asia at the request of Uncle Sam. There were no loading issues to work out back then, just issues with staying dry. :lmao:

 

[amolitor]

Does flickr have ads?

I keep seeing references to advertisements, but whenever I go poke around I never see any. I don't have a Pro account, never did. Is this just something that's coming down the line some time soon?