Flickr purists gripe about video expansion
Members of the No Video on Flickr group have posted hundreds of images protesting the photo-sharing site's inclusion of video.
(Credit: Flickr)Shortly after Flickr added videos to its photo-sharing site, a number of users are up in arms.
The No Video on Flickr group amassed more than 4,000 members just a few hours after the new feature launched.
"I love Flickr, and I think it should stay the same way it has always been," the group description said. "We don't need another YouTube! I have nothing against YouTube, I just don't want to see all the $*#% that's on there to wind up on here!"
Personally, I find the concerns overblown, though it might have been judicious of Flickr to add an opt-out option for those who don't want video. A lot of people react unfavorably to change--think film buffs who don't care for digital cameras, for one example.
And I suspect video is likely to dilute the great photography that's available on Flickr much less than the vast oceans of mediocre snapshots on the site. The days of Flickr being a haven solely for refined, high-grade photography are long gone if indeed they ever existed. Also, who knows? Maybe the addition of video will help improve Flickr's business so it can be overhauled with a better user interface.
Flickr member Haeretik posted a petition, so far signed by hundreds of members, that states, "We all joined Flickr because of its dedication to photography and photographers, and we want Flickr to remain true to this dedication. It is our request that this feature and addition to Flickr be removed."
Some discussion on the gripe group has been constructive. For those who don't want videos to play, there is a Flickr configuration setting that lets users reverse the default behavior that the video will play automatically when its page is opened, and Firefox users can add extensions that block Flash videos.
(Via Thomas Hawk)
Stephen Shankland covers Google, Yahoo, search, online advertising, portals, digital photography, and related subjects. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered servers, supercomputing, open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen.
- Topics:
-
Digital photography
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
It's not that the videos are going to dilute the "art", although for some it may be - it is a matter of greatly noticeably deterioration of resources.
I takes me more than 3 times to view what I want, and all the flickr resources (human and otherwise) could have been spent improving existing services.
If they come up with separate hosting/bandwidth I wouldn't give a flying f, I paid for a service, and if I am not getting what I am used to because of some ill-though-out move, I am not going to renew my pro account.
That said, I wasn't a flickr user, but it is one of the only relatively mainstream photo sites that my employer's overzealous IT department does not block. That will change, I suspect, the day the first must-see video clip is posted to it and 30% of my coworkers click to watch it once. :)
1)Flickr is an artistic photography site; Some argue that it's a photo sharing sight. If it is, why the artistic and competitive nature of the Explore feature? If it's just democratic photo sharing why don't they pick Explore photos randomly?
2) Whether or not it's true, there is some perception that Flickr has had issues maintaining quality service. I think some are concerned that quality of service and upload times will degrade.
That's how I see it. I'm probably mistaken. Just another know it all Yank.
Dan Krecklow
I do think their 90-second limit is interesting, as it ensures some brevity and focus (well, hopefully). Actually I think 60 seconds would be enough for "slices of life." :)