If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   To make up for ruining Flickr and probably ruining Tumblr in the near future, Yahoo announces 1TB Free storage for Flickr users   (gizmodo.com) divider line 67
    More: Cool, Flickr, Tumblr, Yahoo, dry cask storage  
•       •       •

1419 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 May 2013 at 7:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-21 01:01:38 AM
Wow, this is just awful. I've spent the evening trying to get photos into flickr and it's like trying to stuff water into a balloon with your hands. The web client is limited to two hundred photos and randomly refuses to upload photos it doesn't like with no explanation. The desktop app gives up after a hundred or so photos with a modal dialog box cutely proclaiming 'Houston, we have a problem'. The dialog box won't go way regardless of which button (Retry/Cancel) is pressed. It's like they gave up on flickr and decided all they had to do to bring it back after half a decade of neglect is to increase the storage allowance. This smacks of a quick fix culture that ends up dooming companies to the dustbin of history.

Yahoo, you need to learn how to walk before telling everyone you're going to be the star of the Bolshoi.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-21 01:43:39 AM
I hate the new UI and am indifferent to the new account types. Unless I'm over 1 TB. But I doubt I am.

$25 or $50 per year is cheap if you use the site enough for ads to drive you crazy.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-21 02:03:31 AM
Reverend Monkeypants

What you upload has to be a photo. If Flickr can't read the pixels it will say "bonk" and reject your upload.

An original still photo is normally a JPEG (JFIF) file, which can contain metadata. I have always assumed you could embed lots of stuff in the metadata of the original size, at least broken into 64 KB chunks.
 
2013-05-21 03:25:12 AM
I'll  link mine even though it's pretty much just pictures of parrots plus a few of my houseplants and my snake.  Seriously, it's like 80% parrots.  It probably breaks down to 30% Asimov the budgie, 10% other pet birds, 15% the wild amazon parrot pair, 13% Quixote the sand boa, 2% other crud.  I keep meaning to dig through my photos and upload other stuff, but that takes effort.  Some day.

I just wish my bird wouldn't just stick her face in the lens all the time.  It kind of makes it look like I'm just taking the same picture over and over.

/Illustrator, not photographer.
 
2013-05-21 06:22:00 AM

miltonbabbitt: MrEricSir: karasoth: How long would it take to do a terabyte of Photos?

Not very long if they allowed you to upload RAW files (which they don't.)

Actually....

(From another forum)..."OK, I'm pissed. This whole "Free Terabyte!" campaign is very misleading. With the free account you are limited to 300MB per month.  So to add my 50GB of photos it would take 13.8 years. 291 years to fill up the whole TB.
Thanks Yahoo."


It seems many others are hitting that 300MB limit and commenting on it as well.

I've also read that Pro accounts that have already been activated will still cost and function as they always have with no new limits being placed on them. A huge savings from the $500 a year plan and far more allowed uploads per month than the free TB.


I think it is a bug. I've uploaded 10 gig of photo as of this morning with a free account. The most annoying thing I've found is the 200 batch limit if you use their site. You need to use 3rd party programs to upload a few thousand photos at once.
 
2013-05-21 08:52:50 AM

Alonjar: iaazathot: Yahoo! is a very desperate company right now.  They are not vetting their main page well.  We have had a lot of infections on client machnes coming from links right off the main page.  Ads can infect you without even clicking on them.  I am telling my clients to stay far and wide of Yahoo!  Hopefully they can turn it around.

You make a good point of the fact Yahoo has always been behind the curve technologically.  They've never pushed any envelopes really.  They just.. exist... somehow...


My daughter still uses Yahoo! for personal email, and everyone on her address list recently received a "hello" message "from her" that was malicious adware.  Norton popped up a warning, and I wasn't going to bite, anyway.
 
2013-05-21 01:01:25 PM

Carth: miltonbabbitt: MrEricSir: karasoth: How long would it take to do a terabyte of Photos?

Not very long if they allowed you to upload RAW files (which they don't.)

Actually....

(From another forum)..."OK, I'm pissed. This whole "Free Terabyte!" campaign is very misleading. With the free account you are limited to 300MB per month.  So to add my 50GB of photos it would take 13.8 years. 291 years to fill up the whole TB.
Thanks Yahoo."


It seems many others are hitting that 300MB limit and commenting on it as well.

I've also read that Pro accounts that have already been activated will still cost and function as they always have with no new limits being placed on them. A huge savings from the $500 a year plan and far more allowed uploads per month than the free TB.

I think it is a bug. I've uploaded 10 gig of photo as of this morning with a free account. The most annoying thing I've found is the 200 batch limit if you use their site. You need to use 3rd party programs to upload a few thousand photos at once.



Any suggestions as to these programs? Started uploading last night and a way to set it and forget it would help me.

Just using it as a backup for family photos at the moment. My artistic side gets plenty of work during my day job as an industrial designer.
 
2013-05-21 01:24:06 PM
As long as we're pimping photostreams

Haven't actually used my account in a long time. Guess I'll try it out.
 
2013-05-21 02:48:18 PM
I like the look of it so far, but I haven't used it too much, so I suppose time will tell.  After I first signed up for flickr, I quickly forgot I had an account and stopped using it.  Then I was asked to be featured on The Weekly Flickr and started using it again, mostly for the high speed light photos they were featuring me for.  Here's my photostream if you're interested - it's mostly light bulbs exploding.
 
2013-05-21 03:19:23 PM
So is this a legitimate alternative to services like carbonite for online photo album backup?
 
2013-05-21 03:38:56 PM

BillTheCat: So is this a legitimate alternative to services like carbonite for online photo album backup?


It would seem so, yes. Prettier, too.
 
2013-05-21 04:36:28 PM

fo_sho!: Carth: miltonbabbitt: MrEricSir: karasoth: How long would it take to do a terabyte of Photos?

Not very long if they allowed you to upload RAW files (which they don't.)

Actually....

(From another forum)..."OK, I'm pissed. This whole "Free Terabyte!" campaign is very misleading. With the free account you are limited to 300MB per month.  So to add my 50GB of photos it would take 13.8 years. 291 years to fill up the whole TB.
Thanks Yahoo."


It seems many others are hitting that 300MB limit and commenting on it as well.

I've also read that Pro accounts that have already been activated will still cost and function as they always have with no new limits being placed on them. A huge savings from the $500 a year plan and far more allowed uploads per month than the free TB.

I think it is a bug. I've uploaded 10 gig of photo as of this morning with a free account. The most annoying thing I've found is the 200 batch limit if you use their site. You need to use 3rd party programs to upload a few thousand photos at once.


Any suggestions as to these programs? Started uploading last night and a way to set it and forget it would help me.

Just using it as a backup for family photos at the moment. My artistic side gets plenty of work during my day job as an industrial designer.


I've been using uploadr without a problem.  If you go to the app garden and search upload there are a bunch of options you can try and find one you like.
 
2013-05-21 04:44:11 PM
I'm another one of the disenchanted with the new layout, for most of the reasons miltonbabbitt mentioned, plus:

- All the functionality (links to contact photos, recent activity, etc) has been removed from the home page and replaced with one giant photo.
- Endless scrolling. Pity the poor folks with thousands of photos in their photostreams... granted, there could have been a more effective way of navigating than by pagination, but this is not it.
- Everything is jammed together. No breathing room whatsoever... it's somewhat of a sensory overload for the eyes. Not exactly the thing you'd want on a photo-hosting site.
- Titles, text and captions seem to be an afterthought. Many photos have a story behind them that deserves to be told, or information to be offered. This is not Instagram.
- You'd think that there would be a trial period for paying customers to offer input on the new design.

And, frankly, I don't give a fark about cover photos.

I'm a little galled by the fact that this redesign seem to be rooted purely in the "wow" factor (One terabyte of storage!!! Slick new redesign!! Biggr! Spectaculr! Wherevr!) and less in the ease of use for the end user.

/I'll get over it
 
2013-05-21 07:46:44 PM
Is there any easy way to get a direct link to the photo?

- It won't let me right click on the photo and choose "copy link location".
- If I click the share button, it gives me a link to the page the photo is on, but not the photo
- If I click HTML/BB Code it gives me the code to the image, including a bunch of stupid links to Flikr and my Photostream.  I can't highlight only the image URL, instead I have to copy the entire bunch of code and paste it somewhere and delete all the bullshiat I don't need.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-21 07:56:14 PM
ShawnDoc

That's probably a feature -- since you are supposed to link back to Flickr when you post an image, you get the code to post an image with a link back to Flickr.

Try adding "/sizes/l" (or /sizes/m, or /sizes/b, etc.) to the photo page URL. That should get you a page with the image selectable.
 
2013-05-21 09:00:38 PM

ZAZ: ShawnDoc

That's probably a feature -- since you are supposed to link back to Flickr when you post an image, you get the code to post an image with a link back to Flickr.

Try adding "/sizes/l" (or /sizes/m, or /sizes/b, etc.) to the photo page URL. That should get you a page with the image selectable.


That worked, thanks.
 
2013-05-21 11:20:53 PM
This is what happens when you follow (in this case, Instagram) rather than lead.

So far, just about everybody hates the new design.

I agree with the majority (for once). It's cluttered, it's loud, and most of all, it's very slow. The black background on individual photo pages is too harsh. Collections are gone, and sets are harder to find. Text (titles, descriptions, and comments), which many of us work hard on, is smaller, hidden, truncated, or buried within the image (often invisible until you scroll over it). Subtleties are crushed.

Nevertheless, since everybody else is pimping their stream (wait, that doesn't sound right), here's mine. I'm afraid it's obvious that I have a very cheap camera and don't always know what I'm doing with it.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report