Talk:Flickr

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Number of Photos

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge No reason not to. Kevin 08:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I tagged the articles, and still think it's a good idea. - EurekaLott 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge - per above. Jbetak 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]