Ugh! Flickr is making me paranoid about perverts.

[JeffreyG]

I've always poh-poh'd the hysteria about all these perverts wandering about with cameras and such.

Now I have a flickr account that I use to share family photos and stuff with my large extended family. I've started to notice a strange trend. Certain types of photographs attract large numbers of views, while most of my stuff never gets looked at at all.

I dunno. You tell me. Here are two photos taken from the same trip and posted to the same set at the same time. The first photo has gotten zero views. The second has gotten 36 views.

Similarly just before this trip I had two pictures up of my daughters running through a sprinkler. Within days they each drew dozens of hits before I locked them down.

Any other rational thoughts about this. I fail to see what is drawing these viewers but the trend to little girls in swimsuits getting a lot of views is disturbing.

[PhotoJourno]

I know flickr sometimes will bring out photos by keyword, or other criteria. Are you sharing these pics as public?...

Best thing to do in order to be at peace is to keep purely personal galleries private, either accessible via link only, or via password (even if it's just the year number, you can just email your family saying so). That should keep the curious out.

Now this is just my personal take. There are millions of photos on the internet as a whole, which are indexed and can even be googled without even going to your particular site. If you have a romatic photo of two people, and the title is Tahiti 2007, anyone searching for images of -for the sake of argument- their own relatives trip to tahiti, will instead pull hundreds if not thousands of photos from anyone going to tahiti, so long as the file names are the same.

So, just because there is a couple dozen of hits -to me-, does not automatically turn on the RED ALERT light for pervs. It does however tell me that perhaps more people than I feel comfortable with are looking at my personal stuff. So I change it.

With all this having said, the disclaimer must follow: keep tabs on habits, check on clicks, and continue to protect those you love from any potential danger, whether it be some creepy predator, or a misplaced pair of scissors. In my own life, I can never be too careful.

Lastly, here is an example: The name of the first photo you posted is IMG_5288. I googled for any images with that name, look at the results: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=IMG_5288.jpg&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

Chees,

[neumanns]

Are you keywording them or are they having to look at galleries to click on them?

[Amamba]

As a rule, every photo of a family member (or any person for that matter) that I post on a web photo sharing side is posted as Private, and the only people to see it are the ones I send invitations too.

[John_B]

JeffreyG,
Well I like the first photo much better ;)

But for private family views, I would suggest more security! Like PhotoJourno said it could be the result of search engines. Its reasons like this why I have my own site and I don't allow search engines access to my photos :)

[_aravena]

Hm, interesting. I should go through my site and see. Thing is my site is only known by friends and such, not necessarily public for ANYONE although would be interesting to see.

[Kento]

Yeah thats real weird. Maybe it has something to do with them being in thumbnail form when guys do a search and they click on it because at first glance they just see a girl in a swimsuit ... not really noticing the age at first.

[skywalkerbeth]

If it is on flickr - it's totally public, even if people don't "know" about it (I am sure you know this). Your photos will show up on the main page, I think, if you just recently posted them.

What tags are you using?

Flickr may also be posting them as "interesting" which will push them to the front too. Anything with people in them are more "interesting" than ones without, I've noticed. I had a photo of me, full length, in my home as it was being built - as innocent as you could imagine - jeans and a T shirt - but for a while it was the most-viewed of my photos. Until I put up other photos that is..

[JoYork]

I see you have a Pro account - Pro accounts give you stats which give you an idea of how people are finding your photos.

[_aravena]

Yeah thats real weird. Maybe it has something to do with them being in thumbnail form when guys do a search and they click on it because at first glance they just see a girl in a swimsuit ... not really noticing the age at first.

There's a point. It maybe perverts viewing it, but not intentionally. You got to imagine teenage boys on here looking at their friends or girls they may go to school with. Ya never know how they got there but searching and searching they run see thumbnails and click. "Oops, too young" and then click away. Still, it's up to you. You're the parent.

Honestly I know such things will exist and I won't hide a good photo but I'm very subjective and candids etc don't go online much.

[Darsk47]

JeffreyG : Same thing happened to me with shots of swimmers. (I shoot for a local swim team which has its own Flickr pro site )

Some of the shots of the young ladies on the podium in their ultra tight racing suits were being marked as favourites by people I did not know.

Solution was to not tag images. We have no desire for general public to be able to search out the pics. It's really only for the swimmers and parents, and they all have the link. Problem went away after that.

[DocFrankenstein]

Yeah thats real weird. Maybe it has something to do with them being in thumbnail form when guys do a search and they click on it because at first glance they just see a girl in a swimsuit ... not really noticing the age at first.
I think that's exactly what happens.

You can't really see that it's a kid in the picture.

What's interesting is how internet views get you all concerned. I wonder what's going to happen when she turns 16 and there will be REAL guys around her.

[mson]

This is something I have thought about and continue to try and find a rational balance of privacy. First, I took a look at your Flickr page (hope you don't mind) you name your photos by their name. This might be the reason some photos get more views. If I have a friend named Sally and do a search for "Sally" I might see a photo of a girl in a swimsuit and think "whoa is that Sally!?" w/o having any devious intentions. I would recommend using a more generic title or use a nickname that your family knows. I agree with others about tagging as well. I didn't look at your tags but if you have things like "girl" "beach" you will attract more people.

From a less alarmist point of view... Your family was at the beach, do you worry about everyone on the beach that can see your kids in their swimsuits? You probably do, but not nearly as much as someone seeing them on Flickr. I would say take some precautions but don't worry too much. There is always the friends/family only option.

[Persephone]

That's why my mom loves to upload pictures to Facebook instead.

[JeffreyG]

Thanks everyone, many great comments and insight. Generally I'm not too paranoid about this stuff. I just seemed to be seeing a strange trend. I think the suggestions that tags are leading to the views is correct. I started doing the tags so that the various parties that I'm trying to share the photo's with could sort through them more quickly.

I also have left the photos public because some of the intended recipients do not have accounts and are not especially tech savvy (certain grandparents) so this is the easiest for them. And in the end I'm not placing anything in my account that could be construed as anything but harmless in any case.

Perhaps this is just a case of a lot of smoke but no flames.

[StewartR]

Perhaps this is just a case of a lot of smoke but no flames.You'll never know.

But it is a bit weird, all the same.

Have you thought of doing some sort of controlled experiment? If it turns up anything interesting, I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to hear about it.

[binliner]

There must be a lot of pervs on flickr... it's the only way I can explain that in our holiday photos the pics of me snorkelling have been viewed an average of 7 times while the pics of my girlfriend snorkelling have been viewed an average of 96 times :confused:

[Hedley]

As far as Flickr goes, If people are marking your pictures as 'favourites', then look at the other picturess they have marked as favourites and block them completely if it looks like their motives are a bit suspect.

I suspect that once one person has viewed and favourited an image, that is the way it would spread if the tags on the photo etc were not causing it to appear in searches - as others would find your images through their favourites page etc.

[DocFrankenstein]

There must be a lot of pervs on flickr... it's the only way I can explain that in our holiday photos the pics of me snorkelling have been viewed an average of 7 times while the pics of my girlfriend snorkelling have been viewed an average of 96 times :confused:
LOL

There might also be the case of your girlfriend being prettier... ;) (JK)

If you're calling them "pervs" - answer this - would you rather click on a picture of some guy on the beach or a girl?

Girl pictures getting more attention on the net is normal.

[randerson07]

I dont have alot of subjects to shoot, mostly my dogs and my woman.

If you browse through my flickr and check views, my woman dominates. My dogs sometimes come close, only because I post them to dog groups.

[Collin85]

Lucky I had a search before I made my own version of this thread.

I shoot some of my friends and I guess some of them can be regarded as attractive. I know, because the hit rate on their shots are way higher than shots of my own ugly mug. Well, I locked all those galleries so now they have no choice but to look at me instead. :lol:

[_aravena]

^DARN IT!!! I should have saved them when I could. ;)

There really is no wonder why this is my most popular gallery http://www.lastshotphotography.com/p365068612 (91 visitors) but it's there for everyone's viewing pleasure. Now, in 15 years or more and I have kids that are...developing I may start to think more on this. As of now it's strangers or friends and frankly, they are attractive.

[Michael Heston]

I had a guy save a photo as a favorite of my 3 year old son blowing bubbles for a photo contest as a favorite and he posted a comment "Sexy" under the photo. Believe me when I say I tried to find out were he was from but with no luck. I blocked him and now all family photos are private.

[HappySnapper90]

Even look at this site. In the People sharing and even G&N, the majority of posts are of women/girls and its the posts of women/girls that will get the most views and comments.

[Collin85]

^DARN IT!!! I should have saved them when I could. ;)

Too sloooooow... ! :lol:

[Collin85]

I had a guy save a photo as a favorite of my 3 year old son blowing bubbles for a photo contest as a favorite and he posted a comment "Sexy" under the photo. Believe me when I say I tried to find out were he was from but with no luck.

LMAO. :lol:

You know, I'm imagining some obese, 45 year old, unemployed pervert with a receding hairline sitting at home on his computer all day long with a bottle of lube. Crazy stuff, Michael.

[theveed]

Personally, I don't really give that big of a deal about it... What are the odds of my subject being harmed directly with an online photograph, versus strangers seeing them physically in public? Pretty much the same.

People like to see kid photos, people enjoy seeing pretty women (even women themselves!)... How many child care and female magazines are out there compared to male magazines anyway, that disparity spreads towards all form of media anyway. Men are just not visually appealing to look at hehe.

Incidentally, this (http://flickr.com/photos/davidleetong/850420261/) is my most viewed, most faved photo in my 5k+ Flickr images...

[kiwichris]

I keep the size of my flickr pics down, don't tag or keyword any, don't have descriptions either, and don't post anything I consider to be private. Might pay you to check the privacy options if you are worried, and perhaps email family style pics to friends you want to share them with. Problem with the internet is basically it is uncontrolled, which of course is one of the good features also.

[Collin85]

Personally, I don't really give that big of a deal about it... What are the odds of my subject being harmed directly with an online photograph, versus strangers seeing them physically in public? Pretty much the same.

That's of sound logical merit. However there's that aspect of anonymity of the internet which makes it just a little more scary.

[cdifoto]

Everything I want to post on Flickr violates their TOS. :(

[cdifoto]

Oh and Jeff, FWIW, this is what people see when they look at your flickr:

318739

They don't see that bigger image until they click on the small one.

Now, I'm a pervert but that doesn't apply here. However, I can honestly say it's not much of a stretch for people to think they're going to be clicking on something legal. On my laptop it's a TINY image and doesn't resemble anything more than a female in a speedo. Age isn't discernible, and whether I'm looking for arousal or not, I'd be curious to see who or what it is. I can barely tell that she might be borderline in age ONLY by putting my nose to the screen.

In other words, if you don't want people looking at your photos, don't display them. Private hosting is cheap as chips, as are domains. You can auto-generate your own galleries for your friends and family and only the folks you give the url to would know it exists at all.

You can't go out in public and expect privacy.

[shomat]

When I use Flickr to share photos that are only intended for family and friends, I mark them as private and use the "Guest Pass" feature.

[gooble]

I can understand some concern but what exactly is the danger? Like someone mentioned people at the beach can look all they want and probably take sereptitious pictures if they wanted. They could then follow you home then from there follow someone to school or other locations. Now somebody on flickr knows neither names nor specific locations. All they can do is view a picture. What is the danger to you or your family in that?

[Collin85]

I can understand some concern but what exactly is the danger? Like someone mentioned people at the beach can look all they want and probably take sereptitious pictures if they wanted. They could then follow you home then from there follow someone to school or other locations. Now somebody on flickr knows neither names nor specific locations. All they can do is view a picture. What is the danger to you or your family in that?

I don't think anyone said anything about the situation being dangerous. However it can be concerning, as you never know what kind of people these are - shrouded in anonymity behind the internet. It's just like aviation statistics - some people have flight-phobia, even though under particular measuring criteria you're actually more likely to die in a car crash. Rational logic goes out the window a little, but it's understandable.

If anyone here actually felt truly threatened by perverted behaviour, I'm sure they wouldn't even be hosting their pictures at all on the internet. It would be too much of a risk right? Sadly, a few of my friends are like that. They go nuts when I ever try to host their shots onto my website (just casual ones), even when the galleries are passworded and masked over by being private. :lol:

[400dabuser]

That's why my mom loves to upload pictures to Facebook instead.


And you can still see pictures of personal picture on facebook, unless it is only accessible to friends/family, which can also be done with flickr, I have tonnes more on my flickr account, there are locked away with only me or my contacts being able to look at them

I have proven this to work, just use another computer

I can see why you will be concerned about the picture (speaking to OP) being looked on by perverts. The whole point is, if you don't want perverts looking at them, then put the privacy levels up, so only your family or friends can see it

[gooble]

I don't think anyone said anything about the situation being dangerous. However it can be concerning, as you never know what kind of people these are - shrouded in anonymity behind the internet. It's just like aviation statistics - some people have flight-phobia, even though under particular measuring criteria you're actually more likely to die in a car crash. Rational logic goes out the window a little, but it's understandable.

If anyone here actually felt truly threatened by perverted behaviour, I'm sure they wouldn't even be hosting their pictures at all on the internet. It would be too much of a risk right? Sadly, a few of my friends are like that. They go nuts when I ever try to host their shots onto my website (just casual ones), even when the galleries are passworded and masked over by being private. :lol:

When you're out in public with kids, shopping, dining, playing at the beach everyone that can view your kid and can actually physically harm them are shrouded in anonymity too.

[Collin85]

When you're out in public with kids, shopping, dining, playing at the beach everyone that can view your kid and can actually physically harm them are shrouded in anonymity too.

I know. Like I said afterwards, logic goes out the window a little when it comes to things like this. Like you agreed upon yourself, one can 'understand some concern', and that's exactly what's happening here. People are concerned - and rightly so - but no one is panicking.

[JeffreyG]

This thread kind of came back from the dead. I've watched hit rates on all kinds of photos since the initial concern and I'm drifting more to the conclusion that it follows names and to some respect simply order.

Anyway, no I wasn't panicking. But ask a woman with big breasts how much she likes men not so discreetly checking them out all day every day. It's not like they are harming her in any way.

[nicksan]

I usually password protect any family related photos. I recently went to Chicago to visit my brother and his 2 infant sons. I have those pics up but they are password protected and for their eyes only.

Perverts and creeps are to be expected on the web unfortunately. So I think the best bet is to protect your personal/sensitive images...

I agree though...kinda a creepy. :-(

[Michael Heston]

The thing that gets me is he had the ballz to post "sexy" under the image, like he was egging me on or something. People just browsing photos probably wouldn't bother me as bad but when they post comments like that they pushed me in a whole different direction. I know we have perverts and pedophiles and there is a special place for them.

[Perry Ge]

I have quite a few shots of attractive women on my flickr - and you're right that the ones that are even remotedly 'attractive' are certainly viewed a lot more than say, pictures of hobos on the street. I think it's totally normal, and nothing to be worried about - lots of greasy teenagers surf the net too, not just pervs ;).

Having said that my most viewed image is a picture of an owl. :confused:

[Collin85]

Having said that my most viewed image is a picture of an owl. :confused:

Ohh yeah, gimme more of that sexy owl. :lol:

[Perry Ge]

Ohh yeah, gimme more of that sexy owl. :lol:
Oh no! It's one of those OWL PERVS who prowl the internet! Get him!

[Collin85]

Oh no! It's one of those OWL PERVS who prowl the internet! Get him!

*dashes off behind the curtain of intern3t anonymity again* ;)

[Sean]

I keep photo's of my Niece private at the request of her mother, which is how I'd do it anyway. Only family can see them, not friends.

I agree with the public comment however, if you are in public you have an expectation of no privacy. I can listen in on your cell calls, I can watch you pick your nose. I can even take a photo of it. This comes up regularly on most forms.

[zoeysmom]

I had photos posted of my 2 year old niece and had to take them down after a bunch of views that i knew weren't family. better to be safe than sorry!

[Mum2J&M]

Personally, I don't really give that big of a deal about it... What are the odds of my subject being harmed directly with an online photograph, versus strangers seeing them physically in public? Pretty much the same.

People like to see kid photos, people enjoy seeing pretty women (even women themselves!)... How many child care and female magazines are out there compared to male magazines anyway, that disparity spreads towards all form of media anyway. Men are just not visually appealing to look at hehe.

Incidentally, this (http://flickr.com/photos/davidleetong/850420261/) is my most viewed, most faved photo in my 5k+ Flickr images...

As a female, I completely disagree with this. The only reason women are plastered everywhere is a perpetual way for us to feel like we have to measure up in some way, shape or form to other females - regardless of how young, made-up, or Photoshopped they are. It's not about me, or all other females, wanting to see other beautiful females. :rolleyes: I find men visually appealing. I just think there are likely more male pervs than female pervs due to simple biological reasons originally intended for breeding purposes, lol.

[bwolford]

You can't really see that it's a kid in the picture.



You've got to be kidding me!