Talk:Flickr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"unique unlimited storage"

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

flickr features

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

Virgin Photo Ad Photo?

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)

Ungrammatical sentence

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)

Server location

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)

Suggestion: Explain the acronym NIPSA in the flickr context

External link: [NIPSA] Topics:

• NIPSA = Not In Public Site Areas
• How some pictures became marked NIPSA
• What it means for the individual user to see their photo stream marked NIPSA

RomeoOscarBravo 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Old vote for deletion

• Previous deletion debate

3rd party Flickr tools and Services

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

I added "third party tools" in external links for these - they shouldnt be put into the features section as they arent features of the actual Flickr. They shouldnt really be described too much either, because they're only little tools which arent notable enough for a huge amount of text - wikipedia isnt advertising space, but it is handy to have a few links to useful tools. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is such a great idea, as these sorts of sections tend to become magnets for link spam. I suppose we can leave it for now, but if it becomes a problem, it may prove best to remove the section. - EurekaLott 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As I feared, there are now 20 links in this section. Since nobody is keeping it under control, I'm going to remove the section. - EurekaLott 13:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar sites

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)

Social networking?

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)

I know this answer is a bit late but yes it is, I suppose. It has internal mail and you link to friends in a Friendster/Orkut manner, if you want to. Dr Zen 06:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But is the Friends list a way to meet other people, or is it just a way to allow a special sharing circle among people you know? And internal mail by itself is not a social networking site make, otherwise we should put WP in that category on the basis of al these Talk pages! Point being, Flickr is first and foremost a photo publishing and sharing site, and not designed as a social tool. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 19:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would definitely qualify it as a social networking tool. The information you are prompted for in your profile (favorite books, tv shows, etc) has nothing to do with the sharing of photos, but is meant for social reasons. It's not impossible for it to be both a photo sharing site and a social networking tool. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, practically every online website with user registration has those or similar fields in the profile, at very least a "bio" and/or "interests" field. This is a far cry from, say, Livejournal, where you list your interests, and the system links you to other people who have that interest. That's a social networking feature. Having a personal page where you talk about yourself is hardly social networking. Again, WP would qualify as a social networking site under this argument. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 20:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll jump into fray. Must a "social networking" feature be machine-fed/controlled/generated? I frequently "surf through" my favorite bands (for instance) under my Flickr profile to discover others with similar tastes. Flickr also has the concept of adding people to "Your contacts" and optionally arranging some of those contacts as "friends" or "family." I'll agree that Flickr is primarily a photo hosting service, but a whole lot of the tagging, groups, contacts all foster social networking, even if the computer isn't doing it for us. That's one of the strong points of Flickr. --Speedeep July 7, 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Licensing

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)

If they say "all rights reserved", then they're all rights reserved. But look at this photo of mine. It should say "some rights reserved", with a little (cc) button next to it, which is a link to the cc-by-sa deed. You can also go to flickr.com/creativecommons for lists of images filtered by license. --rbrwr^± 17:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Number of Photos

Anyone know how many photo are currently on flickr? --84.93.133.8 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

37 million as of August, their runrate is ~200,000 new pics per day or ~6 million per month, so this needs to be adjusted and the current number is about 45-47 million. Jbetak 03:39, 25 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)

Technical

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)

I think that a mention of the fact that it uses AJAX would be in order. However, I don't know if they've disclosed their server setup. As for the free-cost, they do require pay services for large bandwidth customers, and also, they use advertising to support their site. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:03, 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)

Merging with Organizr

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)

Use of Photos

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)

No. The only images safe to use are those tagged with certain Creative Commons licenses. A list of the usable licenses is at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creative Commons Licenses, and you can search Flickr for them at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ . - EurekaLott 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Forever young 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How is 'Flickr'pronounced? I assumed 'flicker' till I recently heard 'flick - r'.

It's definitely "flicker".

Interestingness

"Interestingness" redirects to here. Could there be some discussion of flickr's concept of and use of interestingness?

Flickr has info here: [1]. It should be included in the article. --70.111.218.254 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

What is the origin of this "unusual" name?

I am not sure. I would suspect in simple terms 'flicker' is of photography/cinematic persuasion and removing the 'e' makes the word non-standard and thus more likely to be copyrightable (I understand you cannot copyright common usage words, which is why many firms have their company name being a mis-spelling of a standard word). ny156uk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

See Also List

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)

Photostream

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)

See the Flickr help topic "I have a free account. Some of my photos aren't showing up. Why?". The images are not deleted, you just can't access them from your photostream (i.e. the "your photos" pages). --rbrwr^± 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Traffic Increase

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)

More See Also list stuff

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)

That's not a bad idea, even there's already a category. I don't think any of them need to be listed in the see also section. - EurekaLott 11:05, 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)

Financed?

Perhaps something should be included that talks about how Flickr is financed. RobertM525 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

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 want statistics

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?

number of photos

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)

"Gamma" status

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]

What does Flickr Gamma mean?

Gamma is a slightly tongue-in-cheek reference to a standard software development cycle, where beta is normally applied to a system that is mostly working, but still being tested.

Flickr is always being tested, by you, dear member. We like to think the system is always in transition, especially when we look into the future at all the fantastic features we have planned!

So, labelling Flickr as "gamma" is just our way of saying that the site is in a state of perpetual improvement.

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)

"seo spam"

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) .

Yes, SEO spam. Low content spam links you have inserted for your benefit - either to increase your page-rank or achieve PPC revenue. One can see other examples of you doing this here and here (the sites are registered to the same person). Please read the guidelines about external links and spam. This link is also an unsuitable reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status

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)

It's up to the individual photography as to how they release them as they retain the copyright on them. If you look hard enough you may find some of them release their photos under free licenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydam (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

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)

The Flickr website itself capitalises "Flickr" whenever it appears in text, as opposed to as a log. Eldang 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Date Founded

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)

I work for Flickr and I have no idea why the birthday parties aren't held in the right month - Flickr was launched on 10th February 2004 at the O'Reilly Emerging technology conference (as documented at Boing Boing among other places), although Ludicorp had been working on it for several months before then --Paulhammond (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Flickr Loves You"

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)

Censorship issue

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)

Image

where was image Image:Kc stadium inside.jpg taken?

Mobile

Why is there no mention of the Flickr mobile offering? Mathiastck 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

flickr

why is flickr blocked on net how can we open flickr what system

How do they make money?

How do they make money?69.114.85.180

Several ways, first is that they're owned by Yahoo!, so they're receiving funding from other sources. Second, Flickr has advertising on its site, so they can generate profit through that. Third, Flickr also has a yearly subscription that removes some restrictions that the free accounts have. For 1 year, the cost is $24.95 and the two year is $47.99 -- MacAddct1984 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Errors

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)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Over 1 Billion photos?

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flickr loves you logo.png

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)

Buzzwords

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)

downloadability

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

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)

Yahoo! Photos shutdown date.

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)

What has happened to the photos which were uploaded to photos.yahoo.com but not migrated?

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

any number avraible how much files and how big they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.23.209 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Headquarters

Where are the U.S. headquarters? Where is Flickr located in the U.S.? This is surprisingly missing in the article. ~MDD4696 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

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)

The website isn't in the Gamma stage anymore, so the logo should be updated. ----:Kirby145: 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

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)

It is really a question best asked elsewhere, but this is it: http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&w= is the link. If you head over to Wikimedia Commons they have a tool to transfer appropriately licensed Flickr images to the Commons, so you can then use them in articles here. Wongm (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Licensing

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)

My mistake, this is all available on http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/. I should be able to make a pie graph of the different licenses within Creative Commons. Richard001 (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

no refund

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)

Virgin ad lawsuit - update??

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)

What is ProAccount?

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)

Flickr images on wikipedia

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)

Please see Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for information about uploading files from Flickr. - Eureka Lott 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Flickr homepages photos repetitive

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)

I don't see why you're raising this point on Wikipedia. If you want to complain about Flickr's choice of front page photos then you should raise it with them. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Flickr storage provider

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)

• Flickr runs its own storage platform, located in 10+ data centers around the world (though mainly in the US). It's many petabytes in size (I built it; there are plenty of [my presentations] that contain more information). Iamcal (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Account-undelete option

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)

Umm...

"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)

Why is there even a section on Commons in the article?

Ebaychatter0 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Magic Donkey

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)

From what I can find, Magic Donkey was a Flickr group,[3] and is not noteworthy in any way. No reliable sources mention it anywhere. Also, it's not an "algorithm" that Flickr uses; that's just a running gag. So, in my opinion, not appropriate to include it in the article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Mayer quote

"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)

Looks like the actual quote says "because today" not "today because", and was spoken at a live event four days ago: "...there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers, when there’s everything is professional photographers. Certainly there is varying levels of skills, but we didn’t want to have a Flickr Pro anymore, we wanted everyone to have professional quality photos, space, and sharing." (That's somebody else's transcription, it's quite a stumbled delivery and I think she was saying "professional quality photo space" at the end.) --McGeddon (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd that she'd claim there are no professional photographers when that's clearly not true. Can we find a source that clarifies this? Or am I just missing something obvious? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's right there in the video source I found, around the 46 minute mark. It's certainly an odd thing to say, but it's a Q&A at some kind of press conference rather than a carefully prepared statement. --McGeddon (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

She has officially apologized for the quote on her twitter: twitter.com/marissamayer saying it wasn't what she meant to say, but yes, she said it in the speech given announcing the flickr revamp. Obviously she's not looking to make too many friends with photographers in the near future ;) CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Redesign Controversy

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)

Worth mentioning, but we should be careful about bandying around dramatic phrases like "massive outrage" when none of the sources go as far as saying that. Both CNet and Tech Radar point out that loud griping is very much the norm when a site redesign launches. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you're overlooking the link to the Flickr forums. I imagine your response will be some kind of interpretation of "reliable source". CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the forums are a primary source, and WP:PRIMARY says: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." It's not for Wikipedia editors to look at raw forum postings and conclude whether or not the 10,651 replies constitute "massive outrage". Just wait for a secondary press source to comment on the level of reaction - if it's significant, they surely will. But we shouldn't make that call ourselves. --McGeddon (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The user reaction is covered in the Cnet article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57585464-93/flickr-users-we-hate-the-new-site/ CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, to follow up, I added a quote from the article. I imagine there'll be a lot more sources to come out as the day progresses. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:18, 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)

He uses the term 'dishonest'. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He uses the term "dishonest" to describe the wording of a pop-up text box. He does not use the word "betrayal". We're not doing him or Wikipedia's readers any favours by misquoting him. --McGeddon (talk) 21:05, 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)

To be blunt, you're very wrong. Firstly, the mention is in the "Controversy" section of the article, not in the body of the article. Look at the Flickr help forums for proof of what is reported in the articles sourcing this section: http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/ . It is a major event because it is a drastic overhaul of a website which has outraged paying customers. It's not like a Facebook update, where all the users are free, Flickr used a customer based business model and is purportedly switching to an ad based business model - this is very drastic and notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Controversy section of the article is still part of the body of the article... Doniago (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my wording, what I meant is main body, as in, clearly anything in the "Controversy" section may have content that is opinionated or debatable, the section merely mentions that there is criticism and controversy, it doesn't taint the neutrality of the article if you neutrally present that there is criticism and controversy. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole section is a fishing expedition for any & all negative critique, and completely ignores the positive articles that have been written about the change. It's getting a little self-fulfilling, with Flickr users now citing the Wikipedia article whose 2-3 authors rely on the primary source Help Forum complaints to justify the slanted writing. It's a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV & impartiality rules. The whole section should be deleted or nearly emptied until there's some actual news. Indications from Flickr staff are that engagement is WAY up, and many have proudly returned. This section doesn't describe a controversy, it's presenting the prosecution's case. And Wikipedia is poorer for it. Jakerome (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a controversy whether you like it or not and that's why it's in a controversy section. So is the censorship scandal, and all the other controversies that have taken place relating to Flickr. Whether YOU personally like the redesign or not, there are many people upset and therefore it's a controversy. If you're the only user that seems to have these critiques, the rest of us who have edited this section speak as a consensus for its existence. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In a controversy, it's traditional to address both sides. The 2-3 writers have gone out of their way to avoid doing so, and bullied other writers into giving up trying to restore balance. Chasing off all that disagree doesn't mean you've achieved consensus. Regardless, I'm done here until I'm sure a real solution will stick.Jakerome (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to contribute - but you can't just delete an entire section of an article like you tried to do without more voices in favour of that. Have a good one, cheers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been being careful to trim this (and Marissa Mayer) back to sources every time CaffeinAddict has added inaccurately-sourced or misleadingly-paraphrased material, but Jakerome is right, stepping back it's ridiculous that we now have five full paragraphs of detail about a few days of reactions, sourced entirely to blow-by-blow tech blogs, with (I think) nothing from mainstream press. These facts might all be verifiably true, but it's WP:UNDUE and unbalanced to list them all, and will look overblown in a year's time - if this was a whole article on the 2013 Flickr change controversy then great, but it's not, it's a single subsection in a much larger article and as such should be given an appropriate amount of weight and space.

I've taken a stab at summarising it from the point of view of what might still seem significant in a year's time, based on what's happened so far. --McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No disrespect intended to Jekerome, but considering he logged into wikipedia for the first time in 3 years just to edit this article, I suspect he's a Flickr user who is in the minority of users that like the new layout. I agree, it may become undue weight, but there are two notable points that I did reinstate: 1. The Marissa Mayer Photography quote and 2. The resignation of Tim Parsey, Head of Design with New York Times article suggesting he's been responsible for a number of redesign failures, including Flickr. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

p.s. As press coverage seems to continue on this subject, at what point would an article on the Controversy itself become notable? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have to meet the criteria laid out in WP:EVENT. --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor - the fact that you're seriously trying to raise concern that another editor might like a website redesign suggests that you perhaps aren't being entirely impartial here yourself.

The New York Times blog does not speculate any connection between being Parsey being "publicly lambasted" and his resignation, it merely mentions these two facts in the same article. Please be very careful in checking that your sources support what you're saying, particularly when there's a danger that an inaccurate summary could libel someone. This is now at least the seventh time on this article that you have used a source to support what you thought it said or should have said, rather than what it actually said. --McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's presented in the proper context now. I removed just the last bit about Mayer deleting her apologetic tweets since she didn't actually delete them-- the author of the article that made that claim apparently failed to click on the "All" option to view replies as well. Jakerome (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What I found lacking from the last WP:Deletionist major edit of the section was some explanation of why things are happening (Who, What, Where When and Why). I've included three more sentences, careful to avoid Undue weight. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your constant WP:Deletionist edits of this section, removing information renders this section devoid of any explanation or analysis from the media. Without this, readers understand WHAT happened, but they don't understand WHY it happened. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No idea where this attack came from, since the only change I made was to remove a verifiably false tidbit of misinformation, which was clearly explained in the edit summary. Jakerome (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And just a head's up, someone is now posting in the Flickr Help forum requesting that Flickr members add to this section, "Wikipedia editors! Add to the 2013 redesign controversy section on Flickr's wiki page! Other editors are trying to diminish the controversy!" -Justin Friesen Jakerome (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well shoot, I did undo an anonymous poster that was obviously from Flickr a day or two ago, but we might have to consider semi-protection if hoards of flickr users start adding unsourced info. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jakerome, are you a Flickr user? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a Flickr user, and, yes, there is a Flickr user named Jakerome, who is active on some of its groups. S Martin (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So we were bullied into removing content on the controversy by someone who is biased FOR the redesign. Sounds like a COI to me. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're basing that on an assumption, but do you have any bias yourself? After having attacked the same user for having "logged into wikipedia for the first time in 3 years just to edit this article" (you yourself created your account earlier this month, and 77 of your 87 edits have been to document negative reactions to the Flickr update), you might want to step away from the WP:BOOMERANG here.

What specific objections do you have to the current wording of the article, or the reasons for it being edited down from five paragraphs to two? --McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've edited wikipedia for longer than that. My two last apartments, here's the IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.70.115.248 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.70.114.43. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And suggesting I have a bias is ridiculous, I'm just trying to get this mentioned at all and you're using obscure wiki-lawyering to keep info off this page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The controversy is and always has been "mentioned at all", nobody has suggested removing all mention of it. The paragraph about the NYT's speculation that Tim Parsey was leaving his job after being lambasted for redesigns "including the Flickr redesign" was found to be your own mistaken interpretation unsupported by the given source, and removed. Your cherry-picked review quotes about the design change were entirely negative, and given the relative size of the section in the article and the mundanity of "website changes design again, people have opinions", cutting them seemed more appropriate than balancing them. A little click-to-vote poll widget on a photography blog can be easily vote stuffed (I managed to vote twice, very easily) and is not a reliable source, nor should it be misleadingly described as "a poll of Flickr users". This is hardly "obscure wiki-lawyering".

What specific objections do you have to the current version of the article? Is it inaccurate? Is "a large number of users complained about the new look" not enough to convey context to the unfamiliar reader? Your earlier "readers understand WHAT happened, but they don't understand WHY" comment was helpful for moving things forward, but it's not very clear what you're objecting to at this point. --McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr CaffeinAddict, calm down. And do some constructive stuff than expanding an article's talk page,Add content and expand other article pages that need your attention. Your IP contributions and Wiki-editing experience are not important to me (us). And stop showing off your skill on talk pages. Do whats best for the Wiki community, and take my advice - stop commenting here. I really didnt want to peep in. But your constant edits to the talk edits are flooding my mailbox. All wiki-users are learner.s No one should make comparisons about experience. Not even if you're an admin, [i havent checked and it doesn't matter for me] Compfreak7 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Look I apologize generally, but if my edits weren't contested by McGeddon and Jakerome so much I wouldn't have posted here so much. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what I've done to deserve being subject to such misguided attacks. I will point out that it's not been three years since I logged in. I have edited probably several dozen articles over the years. Like the one about the South Bay Bike Path, which I *gasp* use! or El Segundo, where I *gasp* work! I've hardly edited this page at all since deleting nearly the entire section for being way out of balance. That was restored in whole before being properly edited. Since then, I removed a verifiably false claim & fixed some punctuation. And yes, I'm a Flickr user, active on the site, and like CaffeinAddict I have my personal opinion about the site. Of course, I'm just about completely transparent in all that and have made no attempt to claim otherwise-- my name is exactly the same! Needless to say, nearly every accusation CaffeinAddict has made against is false. Most of the edits he has made to this section are false, and literally every single one presents only one side of the "controversy." The improvements to the article have been despite his edits, and I'm not sure it's worth McGeddon's time (or anyone else's) to have to keep reverting his ill-advised edits and keeping special watch on the page. And FWIW, having an opinion doesn't create a COI. A COI is created when I have a stake in the outcome. I don't work for Flickr or any competitor. Using the site should be a prerequisite to editing the article. So that's another pointless shot across the bow. Jakerome (talk) 18:44, 29 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)

See your talk page. You've been instrumental in the biased removal of much negative criticism of the site, adding another sentence doesn't outweigh the whole article to a point of complete negativity. Just because you are a Flickr user who may "Like" the redesign, evidence suggestion the opposite is true shouldn't continually be removed. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. CaffeineAddict ignored positive responses & sought out negative reactions to add several paragraphs from mostly obscure or specialized blogs that contained 100% negative information with no balance and clear bias. In an attempt to restore just a modicum of balance, I added A SINGLE SENTENCE referencing a New York Times article that was positive about the changes. Within an hour CaffeineAddict removed that edit. This is a silly game. For now, I removed the last several days of edits as CaffeineAddict doubled the size of the section despite the complete lack of traction in the mainstream press. Jakerome (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was unsourced, it had a wikilink but no reference. Because it was positive, it is inappropriate to be under the "Controversy" section. Lack of traction in the mainstream press - The Huffington Post isn't mainstream? CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Here was your deletion of that "wikilink but no reference"; the reference was simply misplaced at the end of the paragraph.

You seem to be using the word "controversy" to mean "purely negative criticism" - that is not what it means. Wikipedia should do its best to put any controversy into the clearest possible context for the reader; if we had a source saying that 99% of Flickr users welcomed the redesign, we would quote that for context rather than throwing it out for not being "controversial" enough. (I don't see that "journalist X thought it was great, but journalist Y didn't like it" gives the reader any particular insight, to be honest.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:28, 10 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 don't define that sentence as WP:NEWSBLOG - the vancouver sun confirms without a number Stutz's reliability in that case. If you look at the Primary Source of the Flickr Help Forums, it confirms his reliability. I think it's rather crazy that you would get rid of that actual journalistic part of the article. I understand your argument for the rest of it. Right now it is being used to counter-balance David Pogue's insult on Flickr users' right to complain about their paid service changing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As I say, a quick glance at the primary source does not readily confirm that there are "tens of thousands of complaints", but just "29,743 replies". From a skim of their content I'd guess a balance of maybe 15,000 complaints against 15,000 replies to other editors, but I haven't looked that closely. If we're using this at all, we should clarify that "tens of thousands of complaints" is Stutz's personal estimate, rather than suggesting that it's a concrete fact. --McGeddon (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Pogue Quote

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 whole talk page has generated a lot of heat and not so much light. We seem to have two sections devoted to the David Pogue NYT article. Notwithstanding that I would like to see a complete rewrite of the controversy section, possibly merged into the history section, or a unique section of its own, the Poque reference and quote needs to be removed asap. Mr Poque comes with a considerable track record of offering himself out for hire.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/27/will-the-ny-times-give-david-pogue-another-pass-on-ethics/

http://observer.com/2011/06/nyts-decision-on-david-pogues-publicist-pitchbaby-scandal-has-yet-to-drop/

http://www.nytpick.com/2009/06/exclusive-david-pogue-in-violation-of.html

I cannot say, because I do not know, that this piece on Flickr was sponsored. But it has the hallmarks of having been. It's direct purpose is to pour scorn on the "whining" of "a million interneters" looking a gift horse in the mouth. It is quite clear that he has done no research whatsoever, either into those whose complaints he traduces, or the functionality of the new design he lauds. He is not a reliable source for any fact, and his opinions are irrelevant and deeply suspect.Boot minor (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

COI

• As a separate note of interest, it has been suggested that User:Jakerome may be involved in a COI pertaining to Flickr and/or Yahoo. If this turns out to be true, his comments would be stricken from this discussion. See: [4] CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. I haven't edited the article page in weeks. So I have no idea what prompted this latest attack on my character. I'm a Flickr user that's attended a couple Flickr photowalks. I have no special insider connection. Have received no financial compensation. And I've made no secret of my identity. The idea that my contributions to the discussion page should be "stricken from the record" seems odd, at best. If liking a website represents a COI, then so does disliking. I'll also note that I haven't sunken to measures such as going to the Flickr Help forums and encouraging users to add more negative criticism of Flickr in this controversy section. Jakerome (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here is the COI note that was removed by Jakerome from his talk page : [5] CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right I removed it because it's a completely false allegation with no supporting facts. The allegations were made due to some paranoia based on second-hand speculation by a Flickr member posting on iPernity (Bill Penn) that had previously had his Flickr account deleted for unrelated reasons, and temporatily had his iPernity account suspended for using that website as a platform for attacking those he falsely believed Flickr was compensating in exchange for posing as happy Flickr customers. It's bizarre. Keep pushing the point if you want, but it's a pointless task. Jakerome (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It just has to be said for the record. Be careful of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're concerned about an editor's possible COI and don't feel that they've given a fair or complete explanation of their connection, you would do better to ask them directly or to take the matter to WP:COI/N, rather than just raising a Shakespearean eyebrow and suggesting that you think they're lying. But a conflict of interest would never be a reason for comments to be "stricken" from a discussion, only for them to be reassessed. --McGeddon (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am commenting here because though, I didn't start the disagreements on this talk page, I did introduce the question of possible COI. I have come here belatedly and out of the blue. I do hope I'm not muscling in unwelcomely. I have never contributed to WP before, and so far I have only made one edit which was to correct a date in this article. I would like the 2013 change section to be more coherent. I personally feel that our efforts are better employed trying to make this section make more sense than in unproductive disputes.Boot minor (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen admins strike comments from a discussion before over a COI. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm done. Not worth getting harassed in real life based on someone's lies. Jakerome (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)