Flickr

I seem to remember reading a thread about Flickr some months ago, but can't find it now. Anyway, here goes again... I've been using Flickr happily for years, but of late have been having problems. For a start, some of the "users" faveing photos seem suspect, to say the least. The word "weirdos" comes to mind, in fact. Also, Flickr has started reducing dramatically the number of groups you can add a picture to. I've always enjoyed Flickr and the responses I get from all over the world. It would be a shame if, once again, an internet resource is being tainted by people with suspect motives. Anybody else experiencing anything similar?

Was this thread started by Kliphe the one you were thinking of?

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1478​825&page=1

I had a period of about 4-6 months where a bunch of my photos (of varying subject matter) were fave'd by quite a few new accounts with no photos of their own or any rhyme or reason to the ones they fave'd.
I blocked the ones that I felt were trouble and left some others alone.

Haven't had any I felt suspicious of in quite a while...

Terrycanon wrote in post #18523319
For a start, some of the "users" faveing photos seem suspect, to say the least. The word "weirdos" comes to mind, in fact.

Yeah, I have been getting some of the same. Either faveing or tagging me.

I have not experienced a limit on the number of groups that you can add a photo to, but then again I haven't added anything public in a while. I rarely add photos to more than about 8-10 groups anyway.

Tim

DaviSto wrote in post #18523342
Was this thread started by Kliphe the one you were thinking of?

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1478​825&page=1

It was one very similar. All a bit disturbing.

Terrycanon wrote in post #18523319
. . . of late have been having problems. For a start, some of the "users" faveing photos seem suspect, to say the least. The word "weirdos" comes to mind, in fact.

I've seen others complain about this and I don't understand why they have a problem with it.

I wonder why someone would care about who faves their images. I mean, if the Son of Sam himself had a Flickr account, and faved one of my photos, who cares? If Idi Amin starts a Flickr account and faves all of my photos, who cares? The type of people who favorite my photos is not a reflection on me at all, because that is something I have no control over.

If I go to your Flickr page and see that one of your shots has been faved 100 times, and that 50 of those who favorited it specialize in porn photography, that has no reflection on you or you photo at all. No, it doesn't. So, given that, why would you care who is faving your photos? It has no affect on you because everybody who looks at that list of who faved it knows full well that you have no control or influence over who will fave your photos.

This holds true no matter what the subject matter of your photo is. Even if the photo is a portrait of someone very close to you, who favorites it has no real, tangible affect on anything.

Terrycanon wrote in post #18523319
Also, Flickr has started reducing dramatically the number of groups you can add a picture to. I've always enjoyed Flickr and the responses I get from all over the world.

One problem I have had with the groups is that when I search for images within a group, I find some photos that really don't fit the group. I mean, if I am searching a group entitled, say, "Colorado Wildlife", and see a photo of a flower that was taken in New Jersey, and a photo of someone in a prom dress that was taken who-knows-where, then that kind of thing messes up my search efficiency. When I wonder why these photos are part of the Colorado Wildlife group, I check the data on the suspect photos, and find that they have been added to dozens upon dozens of groups. So it appears that the people who post such photos are not being really detailed and selective about what groups they add the photos to, and that is frustrating to me. Any time a photo is added to any group, it should be done with thought and purpose.

Perhaps the number of these inane group additions is what has forced Flickr to limit the number of groups that an image can be added to. And from my perspective, given the way I use Flickr, that is not a bad thing at all. I want every photo in a group to be a pertinent and relevant "fit" for that group.

.

Who cares? Don't post big sized photos, this way those who are aquising to be weirdos can't use it. And most of the weirdos are on Instagram, anyway, statsitically.

Then I see someone else photos in hundred of groups I consider it as spamming. 30 groups limit is not limiting of real users, but cutting of spammers. IMO.

Probably just bots trying to help usage metrics.