top stories

Flickr: 10 things we love and hate

Over Thanksgiving break I got to field a lot of strange tech questions from friends and family. One of the most frequent was what photo services were worth using and why. Nearly everyone has a digital camera now, and there's no limit to the number of places designed to share your shots online. It's no secret I'm an unabashed Flickr user, and despite writing a newbies' guide on the service, even I'm a little hesitant of using it for honest to goodness photo backup (more on that later). Like any critic, I'm peeved by some aspects of the service--especially some of the perks that even a pro membership can't offer. I've put together of five things I love about the service, and five I loathe.

Love

Clear Creative Commons licensing tools. Savvy uploaders can set Creative Commons licensing restrictions on any of their shots, both individually and in batches. By default, you can also choose what kind of licensing you want any of your shots to have, which makes it easy if you're a professional photographer to limit what people can do with them. In addition to giving you tools to tweak photo licensing, Flickr also provides fairly simple explanations of each license type, along with links to learn more. Also, photos that have been given more restrictive licensing can't be downloaded, making it easier to keep control of your intellectual property.

Easy uploading tools. Flickr's latest effort to make photos easier to upload to the Web is a big step up from their previous iteration. We took a look at the new version in August and came away impressed. Well, it's still worth using one of the software plug-ins to get right-click mousing access for contextual uploading on any photos from your desktop, the new Web uploader is really great for updating a ton of shots all at once while away from your home machine.

The API. Flickr's API has allowed for a ton of third party applications and services for both personal and communal use of photos. From business cards to coffee mugs, a hosted photo is more useful when you can do more with it than a quick glance.

Flickr's map: See where geo-tagged photos were shot.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

Geo-tagging. Seeing where pictures have been shot is a neat feature. Even cooler is being able to look at them on a virtual map. Flickr's geo-tagging has gotten even more useful with an overhaul of the built-in map and the addition of Flickr Places, which shows city-specific pages containing photos that are related to a region, or have been geo-tagged by the Flickr community. While the majority of consumer cameras don't have built-in GPS receivers, Flickr is future-proofing itself for when it's a standard feature.

Huge community. There's power in numbers, and the mass of users using Flickr makes it vibrant. While there's no way to easily see how much traffic your photos are getting as a whole, Flickr lets people comment, tag, and leave notes on your shot, adding an extra layer of interactivity to a static image. While other photo sharing sites may have a higher count of hosted photos, Flickr's "interestingness" algorithm highlights the way users are interacting with some of the good ones. Users can also open their shots to tagging by other Flickr members, letting other people do some of the heavy tag lifting for them.

Hate

No FTP. One of the most useful aspects of these online photo services is that it doubles as an off-site backup for any shots you choose to share, but no such luxury comes for Flickr Pro members. The $25 subscription-based annual membership lets users upload and organize as many photos as they'd like. While this is great, what's missing is a way to manage photos en masse if you decide to go elsewhere. While the closure of Yahoo photos led to the company offering a way to jettison your shots elsewhere, there's no such service on Flickr that does the same thing to your hard drive. Considering how many upload tools there are (both third and first party), it's lame not to offer FTP access.

Pro members can't hotlink to hosted photos. Another quibble for the folks paying for Pro memberships is the inability to paste a hosted shot on an outside blog or Web site without linking back as a huge linked image. I'll give Flickr credit for making it really easy to pick out the size of the shot, but considering you're essentially paying a premium for hosting, you should be able to host a shot without having to give Flickr any link love. Heck, I'd even be happy with bandwidth cap on hotlinked images (similar to how ImageShack handles it), as long as I can do without that giant blue box around my shots.

Flickr's Organizr is powerful, but can be a little daunting for new users.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

Confusing photo management scheme. Nearly everyone is accustomed to organizing photos by album. While Apple's latest move is to steer people towards calling them "events," Flickr instead chooses to call them "sets." Unlike albums, sets aren't automatically created when you upload shots unless you specify that. Instead, Flickr chooses to give each user a photo stream, which is one big hit parade of uploaded photos. To organize photos, users must move them one at a time or in a batch (while uploading) into a new set. To complicate matters, for people who want to put multiple sets together in one place, Flickr rolled out "collections"--which to a beginner might sound more like an album than a set. While there is a powerful and useful tool called Organizr, that will let you sort out this mess, it's a hair too complicated for less tech-savvy people to operate.

Intelligently sharing private content is overly complicated. Photos, both individual and in sets, can be set to private, but anyone who wants to see single shots can't just click a private URL you send them. Instead, they have to register with Flickr and befriend you. You then have to authorize that they're your family or contact before they can see the content. Also, if you come across a private photo link, there's no clear and easy way to request access to it from the content's creator without copying the URL and tracking them down to send an inner-network Flickrmail. The good news is there's a "guest pass" system, but this applies only to entire sets or your entire photo stream--not just single shots--which comes back to my organizational quibble about having to piece together shots into a set with each upload.

Overly simple design. Some people love it, others dislike it. Sometimes things can just be too simple. While slide shows and the new Places pages are visually stunning, the photo streams, user profiles, and group photo pools are a little lackluster. Given the success of Apple's recent overhaul of their photo hosting services on .Mac, we'd like to see a little more personal flair and customization make its way onto Flickr. Even just changing the background color would be nice.

Related: The Real Deal: Online photo sharing

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 25 comments (Page 1 of 2)
by BillyWarhol November 29, 2007 12:04 PM PST
Some Good Points! Especially on being able to BACKUP YOUR Content! I did just try an Awesome new Solution FlickrEdit by SunkenCity.org + it looks Great! Cheers! Billy ;)) p.s. They may wanna add Music capability + get with the Social Networking Program!! Even tho Flickr is still the Shining Light of the Web2.0 Universe especially compared to Overrated Billion Dollar Jokes like MySpace + Facebook + YouTube* - they don't even Register a Blip on the Social Network Scene - they are still operating under the $35 Million Dollar Illusion that they are a "Photo Site"!!
Reply to this comment
by Familyresource4u November 29, 2007 12:38 PM PST
Very good post! Flickr is getting so high these days that it gave many people the impression that it is prefect. Well I like many features Flickr offers but it is just too simple. At this time, I keep Flickr as a way to share with my friends and smugmug as online back up albums. http://web500.us
Reply to this comment
by tekwrite November 30, 2007 6:01 AM PST
I have the Pro version and like it. I do agree it is too hard to share photos with others, I have to invite them to join. I don't have much trouble with photography uploads as I look at the untagged ones and those are the ones I put in a new set. or the ones I upload on a specific day.
Reply to this comment
by schellack November 30, 2007 6:40 AM PST
Another "hate" (really more a of a dislike) is that many of my family members and friends appreciate some simple editing tools that Flickr lacks, other than the ability to rotate photos. I don't really look for that additional functionality, as if I'm going to edit a photo, I'm going to use Photoshop. However, it would be nice, when on the go, to have the ability to crop photos.
Reply to this comment
by jeremy128 November 30, 2007 10:23 AM PST
I actually like sets. It's nice (for me) that I don't have to put the pictures I upload in a specific folder, I can just have them 'there'.
Reply to this comment
by ghaff November 30, 2007 11:29 AM PST
Data portability is one beef (though I'm not quite sure what that means beyond mass FTP download). Ability to upload Raw files for backup purposes would be nice (even if they're not displayed). Related would be the ability to selectively decide what resolution of JPEG gets seen by different groups. i.e. upload full-sized JPEGs but only display up yo 800x600 to the general public.
Reply to this comment
by davehm November 30, 2007 12:15 PM PST
i'm not sure what the complaint is about hotlinking. a number of folks i know use flickr as a host for a weekly photo contest and have no trouble hotlinking their images. and without any link love or blue boxes. in fact i haven't seen the blue box you're writing about. while i do have a pro account i only use it for sharing photos. and when i do that it's as a link not a hotlinked image. all my contest entries are hosted on my own site for better control of them. and permanency, such as it is. the sets are ok, haven't tried collections but the photo stream part doesn't really work for me. then again for $25 i don't expect much more than a stable host for stuff that i want to share publicly. and i'd rather point the teeming masses at flickr than have to edit my web pages for the occasional image.
Reply to this comment View reply
by kemorr November 30, 2007 12:29 PM PST
It's not as cool or sexy, etc as some of the other services, but picasa web albums is easy to get photos on the web (essentially one click), easy to share photos w/ anyone without requiring them to sign up and you can allow others to download your photos or order prints from online, and you can upload full resolution files so it is viable as an online backup service if you're willing to pay for the storage. I was able to upload maybe 100 photos in the time it took me to sign up for and briefly read about another online photo site. I guess I'd rather have functional and easy to use over cool, hip, trendy, etc...
Reply to this comment
by kellergraham November 30, 2007 1:21 PM PST
Flickr just recently changed the way Geotagged images appear on its map. You're limited to seeing the most recent 19 pictures, it used to be 200. And when you move the map, it doesn't update. The old maps were a lot better. The new maps miss the point of Geotagging.
Reply to this comment
by Kosh III December 1, 2007 8:28 AM PST
I tried flickr and did not like the confusing navigation scheme. There just doesn't seem to be an easy way to go from one pic to the next or back etc. I use Phanfare which, though pricey, allows big video files and has a very nice full screen slideshow feature.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

New to Web 2.0?

Check out the Webware Newbie's Guides:

Facebook | Twitter | Flickr | Google RSS | Flock
advertisement

Webware

Webware

COOL WEB 2.0 APPS FOR EVERYONE

CNET
Visit other CNET Networks sites: