Flickr clear-our and collateral damage

[sirch]

I’m thinking of having a clear-out of my main flickr account because it has become something of a dumping ground. The issue is that there will be a fair amount of collateral damage with broken links on this site and others, so I thought I’d ask what people thought about doing that, does it matter? And what should I do going forwards? Obviously one option is to upload individually to each site but that can be a pain with restrictions on file sizes etc. and it also is less likely that people will follow on flickr (not that that happens much anyway). I already have two flickr accounts, one is really for family and friends, holiday snaps, etc. and one was supposed to be more of a portfolio but the portfolio one has become a bit muddled so I don’t really want to set up a third.

So thought’s please, is it acceptable to delete a load of flickr photos and leave broken links on sites like this?

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'd set up a third that's strictly kept for exhibition and use one of the others as a place to put work for embedding on websites. There may be some duplication, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[sirch]

I'd set up a third that's strictly kept for exhibition and use one of the others as a place to put work for embedding on websites. There may be some duplication, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

TBH that's why I set up the second but I have been a bit too lax with what I upload to that thread. Having joind groudps and attracted a few followers on that thread it seems a shame in a way to set up a third and start again.

 

[Nod]

Older links that have dropped off the first couple of pages won't matter too much IMO. Maybe a line in your signature giving a brief explanation could help avoid any flak.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Or star a new one as a 'dumo' for embedding and clean up the one with the following.

 

[4wd]

You see it all the time anyway, it can be mildly annoying if there's a thread with several posts about the image but what can you do apart from blame flickr - or use the hosting here.

 

[sirch]

Maybe a line in your signature giving a brief explanation could help avoid any flak.

That sounds like a really good approach. I'd be happy to relink anything that people want to see (assuming I can find the original )

 

[Nod]

That sounds like a really good approach. I'd be happy to relink anything that people want to see (assuming I can find the original )

Another option (if you can find the original file on your computer) would be to Attach it using the button below the reply box when editing each post.
Going by the number of replies to MY posted shots, I'd go with the easier option with the signature addition!

 

[sirch]

Most stuff I post no one cares about anyway so it's easier just to upload the odd one in the unlikely event that someone asks.

 

[FromTarn]

I've pondered about my flickr account lately also, on whether its of use to me anymore as I just upload the odd photo now and thats just the end of it, so I have deleted my account as I still have all the photos on hard drives, pc etc.....

 

[mrtoad]

i have cancelled a lot of my stuff to get my 1000 limit back
i have reconciled to myself that it wont cause too much angst for the viewer of your X post
flikr has its complications
for me anyway

 

[4wd]

I see some are just starting a second account if their limit gets near.

 

[rob-nikon]

I've pondered about my flickr account lately also, on whether its of use to me anymore as I just upload the odd photo now and thats just the end of it, so I have deleted my account as I still have all the photos on hard drives, pc etc.....

Mines pretty much dormant. I haven’t uploaded any new images for going on six months now. I don’t know what it is but I’ve kind of fell out of love with Flickr even before the changes where made. The platform just feels old and tired. The only people left of my followers posting seem to post 3 or 4 nearing identical photos so that makes me less inclined to visit. Now my zapier links have failed and don’t automatically post from Flickr to Twitter and/or Facebook I’m even less inclined to use it. I think I will just leave it there as it’s doing no harm. Maybe I will start uploading images again, maybe I won’t. I don’t think I’m the only one feeling like that.

 

[Dylanlewis2000]

I am slightly annoyed with Flickr. First they offered unlimited ,then it was a few GB, now its 1000 images. I understand they need to make money, however, they are going back on all of their promises. When I go to download my images it brings an error too! Not helpful at all.

What are people using to host images? I have just started looking at Canon's free offering which gives 15gb. I already use Google Photos which is good, however the organisation of images is a little chaotic.

 

[rob-nikon]

I am slightly annoyed with Flickr. First they offered unlimited ,then it was a few GB, now its 1000 images. I understand they need to make money, however, they are going back on all of their promises.

Different owners. We can’t really expect a new owner (smugmug) to honour what a previous owner (yahoo) promised. Yahoo also went through a few CEO changes during their ownership that meant a change of direction (not unusual for leadership changes).

When I first joined I remember free accounts were limited to something 200 photos. Then is went to 1TB storage now it’s 1000 photos. Sadly Flickr has been going downhill for a number of years (competition from the likes of Facebook and instagram) and they have been trying new ideas to turn it around.

 

[sirch]

We can’t really expect a new owner (smugmug) to honour what a previous owner (yahoo) promised.

It's the basic business model of most web companies over the last 10 or 20 years, start a company and give everything away for free to capture as many users as possible, when they have enough users they float on the stock exchange or sell the business to someone else. At that point they are expected to turn the users into profit and the early promises are abandoned.

 

[Dylanlewis2000]

Different owners. We can’t really expect a new owner (smugmug) to honour what a previous owner (yahoo) promised. Yahoo also went through a few CEO changes during their ownership that meant a change of direction (not unusual for leadership changes).

When I first joined I remember free accounts were limited to something 200 photos. Then is went to 1TB storage now it’s 1000 photos. Sadly Flickr has been going downhill for a number of years (competition from the likes of Facebook and instagram) and they have been trying new ideas to turn it around.

Why on earth not? If they are buying the business, they know the current model, they should be supporting existing users who signed up with the agreement of X Y Z. New users should be subject to restrictions. Its basic bait and switch tack ticks. They get people to sign up for a service with the offering of free storage etc, then claim that this is not a viable model. Sorry, I think there should be something against companies which do things like this.

 

[rob-nikon]

It's the basic business model of most web companies over the last 10 or 20 years, start a company and give everything away for free to capture as many users as possible, when they have enough users they float on the stock exchange or sell the business to someone else. At that point they are expected to turn the users into profit and the early promises are abandoned.

That’s business. There is a cost to running something like Flickr and at some point they going to hope to make a profit otherwise it’s not a viable business. Free accounts are really just free trials to entice you to sign up to the subscription. If they can’t entice people to pay they have a problem in that its not a viable business and it folds.

Why on earth not? If they are buying the business, they know the current model, they should be supporting existing users who signed up with the agreement of X Y Z. New users should be subject to restrictions. Its basic bait and switch tack ticks. They get people to sign up for a service with the offering of free storage etc, then claim that this is not a viable model. Sorry, I think there should be something against companies which do things like this.

I guess our outlooks are different. When I signed up initially it was 200 photos max on a free account. Now there is a 1000 photo limit. That’s 5 times more than when I signed up so overall that’s an improvement. After a couple years I liked Flickr enough that I signed up for pro, then a few years later they changed the terms and free accounts no longer had a 200 limit. I’m probably not the only paying ‘pro’ member that stopped paying as I didn’t see much benefit for the subscription cost and went back to a free account. I never thought the free 1TB storage was ever going to last as I don’t expect things like this to come for free. The 1TB storage on the free account feels like it was a mistake by yahoo.

Running a business such as Flickr has costs (software, hosting, servers, staff etc), they are going to need to make money somewhere and that’s before making a profit too. A business that doesn’t make a profit isn’t a viable business. To be honest Flickr should have disappeared a long time ago. The free accounts have great while they lasted but nothing free lasts forever. To be fair it’s the people who were paying and had their terms changed by doubling the subscription that I feel for. My account was free so I don’t have a case as its not costing me anything more than I was (not) paying.

 

[ancient_mariner]

TBH Flickr now is enormously better than it was in the early days - there was a time when it was so slow that I simply refused to visit user galleries because the wait was so irritating and the gallery organisation completely sucked. And even if there is a 1000 image limit, at least they haven't made themselves unusable like Photobucket.