One of many reasons Yahoo has lost so many Flickr photographers to Google+… 40 favorites out of 239 views, and my nearly 2 year exclusion from one of Flickr's key features remains (after roughly 250 inclusions): http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffreysullivan/8136413427/
This was covered back in November 2011 when Flickr "Customer Service" completely failed to respond. Will Flickr continue to treat paying customers with such disdain +Marissa Mayer, or will you implement a change of course which treats customers with far more respect?
——————————————————————————————————–
https://plus.google.com/104987932455782713675/posts/ZUtN3TmiqtW
Blacklisted from Flickr's Explore? Tell Them It Has To Stop.
PASS THIS ON… THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR SHARES!
It's high time Flickr stopped blocking good photographers from their Explore feature. The fraudulent behavior of rigging game TV shows has been clarified as illegal, and allowing Internet community members to believe they're participating in a level playing field when in fact it isn't, is no less fraudulent in my opinion.
Quoted directly from an interview by PetaPixel:
Heather Champ is cofounder of Fertile Medium, an online community consultancy. She was formerly the Director of Community at Flickr and the co-founder of JPG Magazine, which she started with her husband Derek Powazek.
PP: What’s something about Flickr that most people don’t know?
HC: Don’t know? Or don’t want to know? <b>How about clinging to the belief that the Top 500 is picked by hand or that a member can be blacklisted from having their photos appear in Explore? Neither is true.</b>
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/29/interview-with-heather-champ/
As +Thomas Hawk explained here on Google+ yesterday:
https://plus.google.com/104987932455782713675/posts/YHtKvbPdi5E
_ +Jeff Sullivan Flickr blacklisted me from Explore with the inclusion of my 666th photo shortly after I wrote an article criticizing some of their practices. For much of the time that I was blacklisted flickr publicly denied that a blacklist even existed. After she left, former Flickr community manager Heather Champ was asked to comment on some things that people don't know about Flickr and she used that opportunity to lie yet again about the practice of flickr blacklisting photographers._ http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/29/interview-with-heather-champ/
Flickr later confirmed to me that I had in fact been blacklisted. They told me that the blacklist wasn't because I was critical of Flickr but that it was because I was too popular. I did not buy this argument because there are many other people on flickr who were not blacklisted and many of them more popular than I am (+Trey Ratcliff for example).
After conversations with current flickr staff they unblacklisted me from Explore and also unbanned me from the Help Forum after being banned there for over two years. Immediately a few of my photos made it back to the section and I've had a few in there this month too.
I believe that many other photographers over the years have been singled out and blacklisted from Flickr's Explore system. I believe that this sort of secret blacklist is harmful for community at Flickr and flies in the face of what ought to be a basic tenant of transparency. I think it was also made worse by the fact that Heather lied about it.
I submitted a support request asking Flickr to remove my account from the blacklist, and I uploaded an image to test whether Flickr removed me from the Explore blacklist yet: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffreysullivan/6351706556/in/photostream
Edit: Thanks Thomas Hawk for giving this topic more visibility:
https://plus.google.com/104987932455782713675/posts/ZUtN3TmiqtW
———————————————————————————————–
Update Nov 5, 2012 – The issue on my account was resolved, and 27 photos from the past 2 years were included as active ones in Explore retroactively. That's half of my photos currently in Explore. Only about 10% of my prior 250 Explore photos are active in Explore, so a reasonable estimate might be that another 220 images in addition to the 27 just added might have been presented to the Flickr community. Who knows what new friends and opportunities might have come up…
———————————————————————————————–
Update May 28, 2013 – The Flickr blacklist on my account returned about a week later, lifted for a week or so in March, but is back again. Normally photos being Favorited by 20% of all viewers have good odds of getting into Explore, but I've had several photos reach 50-60% Favorites in the past week, with no Explore. Flickr can put lipstick on the pig with a new user interface, but what is killing them is a number of their archaic business practices, incompatible with a Web 2.0 world.
Embedded Link
www.flickr.com/photos/23183960@N00/8136413427
Google+: Reshared 11 times
Google+: View post on Google+
Comments
Lame- somehow +Thomas Hawk was able have his sentence pardoned!
No kidding +Julia Peterson. I wonder whether +Marissa Mayer even knows about the Flickr Explore blacklist… hard to imagine it remaining in place after any sane, intelligent person found out about it (someone who didn't run Yahoo into the ground). Hopefully she knows about it now. I've re-submitted a Flickr Customer Support case with a link to this post, so they'll know that their answer is being eagerly awaited….
Pardon my ignorance as I don't use Flickr. How do you know you have been blacklisted from this explore? How does one get on explore? From reading some of your words of one of the links it sounds like the images picked for explore usually have a lot of social activity related to them.
This is strange as one could expect that with the demise of Yahoo360,MyBlogLog,etc that Flickr could have formed the basis for relaunching Yahoos social networking efforts.
I agree – people who have behaved themselves should not be blacklisted. Simply asking questions that are uncomfortable to flickr is not a good enough reason.
What I also find interesting is that I was a paying member of flickr for 3 years. I was never on explore. When I let my paid membership lapse about 6 months ago, I was suddenly on explore about 4 times right away. This seems like a bit too much of a coincidence.
It's an attempt by Flickr to identify the "most interesting" photos on Flickr. The algorithm isn't known, but speculation could be that it's some combination of overall activity and intensity of that activity (activity per unit time), perhaps compared to some baseline of usual activity for that user.
If a photo is interesting to many people, it may be interesting if recommended to others, in the 500 per day presented in Explore. Explore can result in a major jump in views, and that photo's ranking in response to searches later (including searches by photo buyers). The operation and effectiveness of the site can be severely affected for people who are blacklisted, yet there's no indication that we're held back, other than a sudden and unusual exclusion from Explore, and there's no discount for the reduced functionality, we're charged the same annual fees as people not restricted.
It strikes me as an extremely underhanded way for Yahoo to do business with its loyal, paying customers. Will that continue to be the standard for Yahoo going forward?
I guess my confusion still comes down to how you know you've been blacklisted. Especially with the knowledge that this algorithm is unknown to Flickr users. Without knowledge of that there is little one could do to purposefully improve or decrease their chances on getting on explore, and there is no way to prove this blacklist (which theoretically would be a handful of Flickr staff cherry picking people out of the pool of possible explore photographs) even exists.
Flickr Explore works in a way for the casual user to find new photos and photographers to follow. For the uninitiated, who is in explore matters less than just that an explore exists.
It hurts flickr's reputation amongst photographers though when they use a blacklist with it. Flickr probably should be courting a lot of people on their blacklist not trying to drive them away. Related to the blacklist problem would be the problem of people assuming or thinking that they are on a blacklist even when they are not.
It also feels unethical to me for flickr to allow an ex-employee to deny that a blacklist exists when one in fact does. This goes against the idea of user trust which is more important than the potential secrecy of an algorithm.
If flickr can't manage an algorithm without blacklisting then I think that's a problem that they need to figure out and fix. It really should not be that difficult. If they can't, I think I'd err on the side of over-including people that they would just as soon blacklist than in blacklisting.
It doesn't really matter to those "exploring" who is in explore, but it does seem to matter to many who are blacklisted or think that they are blacklisted.
Tangentially related, Explore does a horrible job with personal relevancy which is why I stopped using it a long time ago. I felt that the quality of the photography there was not what I wanted to see and I get annoyed by an oversaturation of signatures/watermarks which is pretty much a good definition of what explore has become today.
Explore is not really for me though, it's for the casual and uninitiated flickr user. It could do a good job for both them and me though if flickr more carefully considered personal relevancy.
I give Flickr so much data about what sort of photos I want to see. I give them data by telling them who my friends are, by telling them who my contacts are, by what photos I fave, by whose photos I fave, by what tags are on the photos that I fave, by where the photos that I fave are located in the world. Explore uses not a bit of this data and it could and it could become so much more powerful as a discovery/recommendation engine than what it is today.
Algorithmic photographic curation based on solid machine learning is going to be a very big thing in the coming years. Photo sharing is in its infancy and as it develops we will need a better filter to manage the growing number of photographs that are published daily to the web. There will be a huge opportunity for the person who can create the perfect algorithm. There will also be enormous power and responsibility for the person who manages this algorithm.
It would be nice to give a fresh look to the explore just like Flickr did for displaying photos from contacts or in group pools. A bigger size would be welcome. It would be nice if the Magic Donkey could learn how to select more interesting photos than the average ones selected at the moment.
I'm probably not blacklisted but I only got 1 or 2 photos in the Explore in the last couple of years versus 1 a month before.
Explore photos tend to be pretty whitebread, so I (still) can't get real excited about this issue. Rather than tweaking a poor system, flickr should throw it out and implement real collaborative filtering.
+Scott Horwath When dozens or perhaps hundreds of Flickr users with the most engagement (and a history of many Explore inclusions) suddenly notice that their photos stop getting into Explore completely, while looking at Explore shows that relatively uninteresting and unengaging content is being selected instead, whether the blacklisting is literal or algorithmic doesn't seem like a particularly interesting or relevant distinction.
There is however evidence to suggest that it's a specific list though: Thomas Hawk's removal then individual restoration, along with Flickr's description to him of that process occurred.
When you're active in a community, you see and discuss things happening in it and there were algorithmic changes affecting everyone, as well as these all-or-nothing events affecting individual people (being on or off the list). The observed result fits the anecdotal evidence of the cause.
For people who have never been on Explore, there's probably no reason for Flickr to single them out for exclusion. A good, strong engagement level on Flickr where 10% of people visiting having favorited the image is a range where the photo is more likely reach Explore (if that engagement wasn't due to promotion in groups, etc). Particularly strong images where those numbers are more like 15, 20 or even 30% makes the likelihood of Explore inclusion even stronger. Few enough photos get that sort of vote of confidence in a day that their lack of inclusion in Explore for days, weeks, months or even years on end becomes a pretty glaring piece of evidence that Flickr has installed some pretty onerous roadblocks for some, but not all, of its most popular photographers. We're told it's a blacklist, and the evidence supports that assertion, but whatever it is, as a seven year customer of Yahoo (for Web sites as well as Flickr), I want to know when it'll change.
I agree, looking at Explore results these days can be pretty boring +Jef Poskanzer so I rarely go there anymore. But as a photographer when one of my photos is found through Flickr's strong search results, which can be sorted by quality, the same interestingness which is both measured, and reinforced, by Explore inclusion, in those cases I may sell an image for a calendar or book cover, and Explore can pay a monthly child support payment to feed and house my kids, contribute towards $7000 in vehicle repairs so far this year, contribute towards over $5000 in medical expenses following my recent emergency room visit, and maybe eventually even help put a little food on the table.
I have thousands of reasons to get excited about the issue. My daughter is applying for college. Someone in Yahoo managing a list is damaging her chances that she can go. Perhaps +Marissa Mayer can help end those community-damaging and even life-affecting policies implemented at Flickr before she arrived? Perhaps I should suggest that my daughter Nicole send a letter to Marissa herself, asking that she not have her life held back by Flickr/Yahoo.
+Paul Gomes would you prefer she fake sympathy instead? Too many here do that already. When people express disagreement, that does not mean hated. Where do people get ideas like that from?
Having said that, I'm just not popular enough to be blacklisted. Wish I had that problem, though…
+Matt Shalvatis +Paul Gomes You're right, it was a bit petty, and I hadn't had my coffee yet. But I’ll try to clarify. It seems to me this whole discussion is a little like an affirmative action argument, and I guess that’s one way people get polarized. I’ll get to that in a minute. But another thing worth pointing out is that Flickr was not actually created to pay mortgages and send kids to college. I’ve been on Flickr just as long as Hawk (one month later in 2004, actually), so I am well aware of Flickr’s evolution. And it wasn’t created to do these things. In fact, they spell out right in the community guidelines (http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines) that they’re not particularly interested in your using Flickr as a commercial enterprise. Given everything on the interwebs that IS a commercial enterprise, I am okay with this.
As far as Hawk is concerned, he’s made a virtual career of running his mouth about how much Flickr blows, yet he still posts there, daily. That would be kind of like me standing outside of a Walmart screaming about their unfair labor practices and then going inside to buy a case of Coke.
Then too, consider how this sounds to people just struggling to get on Explore at all. I’ve been on it, so I can’t complain. (Admittedly t was a hell of a lot easier when it was a smaller pond). But I’m not going to assume it’s a vast conspiracy against me or anyone else.
And I guess that’s what bothers me—all the hyperventilating that Flickr isn’t meeting your requirements, when it wasn’t set up to be those things, and frankly, ignoring the concept that there are other people that might want their turn, too. It bothers me when people make something all about them when it’s for everyone.
+Angela Henderson where have I ever said "Flickr blows?"
It is possible to be critical of something and still care a great deal about it. Consider that criticism can be borne out of a genuine desire to see something one cares about improve. I think you'll find that many of the things that I've complained about re: flickr in one form or another were eventually addressed by flickr. For example, for the longest time I was critical of the fact that they'd delete accounts without any possibility for appeal or restoration. Now today they have an undelete feature which allows them to restore an account. I honestly think had it not been for the pressure applied this feature never would have gotten the attention that it needed.
As far as an explore blacklist goes, I just think that if one is applied it should be applied universally and not just for some of the members. It's mostly a matter of fairness. If flickr wants to say that anyone with over 10,000 views on Flickr is automatically blacklisted fine, that's something that could be discussed and debated. But to say that certain members will be blacklisted and other members who are even more popular will not be just feels arbitrary. This hurts flickr and their reputation.
Personally speaking I'm quite emotionally invested in flickr and very much hope that they succeed.
Oh and as far as flickr and commerce, flickr's strictly non-commercial nature went out the window as soon as they partnered with Getty images to sell photographs.
+Angela Henderson _"Then too, consider how this sounds to people just struggling to get on Explore at all."_
Taking better pictures is one option. We were all starting out at one point, but we worked diligently on our craft and improved over the years.
"But I’m not going to assume it’s a vast conspiracy against me or anyone else. "
Sorry, but given that I presented a case with evidence, that seems like an unnecessarily snarky comment, bearing no relevance to my actual points. (Do you need another cup of coffee perhaps?) If you're going to create a false straw man to argue against, kindly do it elsewhere please.
"And I guess that’s what bothers me… ignoring the concept that there are other people that might want their turn, too."
Not at all! Want a turn? Take better, more interesting pictures. (Not you personally, I didn't look at your photos.) Isn't that the stated goal of Explore, to show off "interestingness? Today, it fails.
"It seems to me this whole discussion is a little like an affirmative action argument…"
Not on my part; I've simply asked for a level playing field, equal access to one of the features, in a service I've payed for for 7 years or so. You're the one who said,
"consider how this sounds to people just struggling to get on Explore at all." and
"…there are other people that might want their turn, too."
Isn't that the affirmative action argument?
You can rant and rave all you want, but misrepresenting my case, then arguing the side you just falsely assigned to me, isn't going to work here.
You mention that +Thomas Hawk _"has made a virtual career of running his mouth about how much Flickr blows, yet he still posts there, daily."_ He posts there to make money. If I'm not mistaken, most or all of those images go into Getty. As for his constructive criticism for Flickr, they apparently appreciated the feedback enough to remove him from the Explore blacklist. Allowing his images to make Explore increases their search ranking, and therefore Yahoo's own revenue from them as they sell exclusively through Getty.
As for your claim that Flickr is "not particularly interested in your using Flickr as a commercial enterprise", not true. I get frequent requests through Flickrmail to offer more of my images for sale through Flickr/Getty. One image I sold through Flickr is over on National Geographic's Web site. Why would I do that if my images are disadvantaged from on-site search through their exclusion from Explore? It's a nonsensical strategy for Flickr.
Rather than tout enforcement of Flickr's under-performing model, a more relevant point of discussion would be whether Yahoo should try to closely guard Flickr as a closed community with no commercial activity and no outside links. A few examples come to mind… Facebook, PInterest, and Google+. Which business model is working better today, open or closed?
While Flickr clings to its dysfunctional closed model and even my Getty images are disadvantaged by Flickr's bizarre favoritism, I almost exclusively use Flickr for social networking around photography. I am faced with the reality though that buyers do use the site to find images to publish, and if or when an opportunity comes up, what exactly am I supposed to eat, cake? Allow me to introduce you to my daughter Nicole:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/4kvlg7ekEv3Wmn8UmkRMnNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
So your point is that I should turn away publishing offers (which I didn't solicit) and she should't go to college because you want to stroke your ego with a better chance at Explore inclusion (with better photographers excluded)?
I'll take my chances that saner heads may prevail at Flickr under Marissa's leadership, and that their anachronistic insistence on a closed environment is ripe to end. I'm developing a long list of things they can work on, if Flickr may see more development (if not, the suggestions can work for their replacement in the market). To the extent that your points reflect Flickr history, yes, I do specifically and emphatically advise Yahoo to adapt to the changes in the market over the past 8 years, to remove feature barriers targeting a few customers, and to revise outdated aspects of their Terms and Conditions which conflict with the ways in which the site is used, and the ways community members find it useful, because when Yahoo doesn't meet our needs, we go elsewhere. Case in point: where exactly are we having this discussion?
"You mention that +Thomas Hawk "has made a virtual career of running his mouth about how much Flickr blows, yet he still posts there, daily." He posts there to make money."
No, I don't post to flickr to make money. I post there because it's an amazing place and probably the best highly organized library of images in the world built around a social network. I also post there because it has some of the best photo organizational tools available on the market today. I can organize my photos there with SuprSetr in ways that I could only dream about using on G+ or Facebook or elsewhere. Of my 76,000+ photos that are on there now, I think less than 300 or so are represented by Getty. Mostly I'm there as a place to organize my photos. I do though still have hopes for social on Flickr and at Yahoo if they could ever figure out how to do groups right.
I also think that Flickr has one of the best and most robust APIs in the photo sharing space.
G+ has blown them away as far as social goes though.
Thanks for the correction and clarification +Thomas Hawk. I agree with you on some of the benefits of strong tag, set, group, and search technology:
"I post there because it's an amazing place and probably the best highly organized library of images in the world built around a social network. I also post there because it has some of the best photo organizational tools available on the market today. I can organize my photos there with SuprSetr in ways that I could only dream about using on G+ or Facebook or elsewhere."
I'll have to look into SuperSetr, thanks.
It'll be interesting to see whether Google thinks images are worth adding more intelligence around, before Yahoo gets around to reworking its social strategy (whether on Flickr, or simply leveraging it for the photo side).
It's mostly a matter of fairness. If flickr wants to say that anyone with over 10,000 views on Flickr is automatically blacklisted fine, that's something that could be discussed and debated.
Yes. This is fine, and if the conspiracy theories are correct then I have no issue with a discussion.
where have I ever said "Flickr blows?" I'm quite emotionally invested in flickr and very much hope that they succeed.
Yeah, um, that really wasn’t your tune when you were shilling for Zoomr, Thomas.
Taking better pictures is one option. We were all starting out at one point, but we worked diligently on our craft and improved over the years.
Indeed. And yet, that still doesn't guarantee success…or Explore.
If you're going to create a false straw man to argue against, kindly do it elsewhere please.
I was actually thinking of Thomas in that moment, but now that you mention it, you might want to try some decaf 🙂
Isn't that the stated goal of Explore, to show off "interestingness? Today, it fails.
Yeah, and this is what reminded me of political arguments I’ve seen before: when I don’t get such and such, the system is broken. Still, if it’s really that bad, why not take it to 500px or something (or in your case, stay over there)? So far as I can see, there it is not failing.
I've simply asked for a level playing field, equal access to one of the features, in a service I've payed [sic] for for 7 years or so.
You paid for it, so you should get top-level Explore every day? I’m sure this isn't what you’re saying, but that’s the sentiment that comes across, I’m afraid. Tread carefully.
_You're the one who said,
"consider how this sounds to people just struggling to get on Explore at all." and "…there are other people that might want their turn, too."
Isn't that the affirmative action argument?
Yup. Arguments I stand by, matter of fact.
You can rant and rave all you want, but misrepresenting my case, then arguing the side you just falsely assigned to me, isn't going to work here.
Not ranting or raving.
I am faced with the reality though that buyers do use the site to find images to publish, and if or when an opportunity comes up, what exactly am I supposed to eat, cake?
It’s called diversification. If you’re basing all of your net income on whether or not you get on Explore, you've got a problem.
So your point is that I should turn away publishing offers (which I didn't solicit) and she shouldn’t go to college because you want to stroke your ego with a better chance at Explore inclusion (with better photographers excluded)?
Um, no. Look, you’re worried about money, I get it. California is probably one of the best places on earth for photography, but alas, also one of the most expensive. (An understatement, really). I’m going to be trying to figure out how to send two to college at the same time (twins), so yeah, I get it. In fact, you might be surprised how many other people have similar struggles. In any case, I am an old-school Flickrite, and that means I generally take the business end to 500px/Zenfolio/Fine Art America, all of which were cooked with a little more of the capitalist flavor. 500px still has a ways to go, of course. But it will be interesting to see how it develops, and I don’t beat the dead horse for not getting up and running the way I want. Cause hey, when you’re really that good? There are other horses and races.
Yeah, um, that really wasn’t your tune when you were shilling for Zoomr, Thomas.
+Angela Henderson could you be more specific? I can try and help you if you want. http://goo.gl/1QIVdr
I don't ever recall saying "flickr blows." It seems more like you are putting words in my mouth here that are not mine. Certainly I've been critical of many of their decisions over the years — although they've usually revolved around very specific issues, censorship issues, account deletion issues or what felt like personal retaliation around issues like these.
You seem to be of the mind like many others at flickr that flickr is a love it or leave it proposition. "America, love it or leave it," was a popular slogan leveled at war protesters during the Vietnam era. The idea was either leave the country you love or STFU — that protesting or working to improve something was somehow invalid. And yet I'd argue that working to make something that you care about better is a perfectly valid argument and a healthy part of what community ought to be about.
Many of the more positive changes that have come to flickr over the past several years are related and due to community advocacy and engagement.
"Yeah, and this is what reminded me of political arguments I’ve seen before: when I don’t get such and such, the system is broken."
Comparing a statement taken out of context to something unrelated is a great way of sidetracking a conversation +Angela Henderson. This isn't that political argument you refer to. I asked a specific question of the new Yahoo CEO about the fate of a specific list on their photography site, blacklisting specific photographers.
My point about the interestingness algorithm failing was simply from the standpoint of it ignoring images favorited by one out of every few visitors., i.e. the feature/algorithm not actually finding or presenting interestingness. Why utterly misrepresent what I'm saying, rather than simply engage on the point I actually do make?
"You paid for it, so you should get top-level Explore every day? I’m sure this isn't what you’re saying, but that’s the sentiment that comes across, I’m afraid."
On the contrary, I simply asked not to be blacklisted, for the site not to be deliberately hand-rigged against me. My photography does fine in a level playing field.
"Still, if it’s really that bad, why not take it to 500px or something (or in your case, stay over there)? So far as I can see, there it is not failing."
I did take my photography to Panoramio, which has been roughly 40X more effective at generating views. More recently I've brought my photography to Google+, which has been several hundred times more effective at generating contacts (831k here). Then Facebook… 127,000 contacts. I'm on 500px an other sites too, in case they grow to a relevant degree.
Perhaps you're mistaking Thomas and I for Flickr detractors. Neither of us sees Flickr as a dead horse. Neither of us has a problem with diversification, or finding other horses and races. We have both stated that Flickr has strategic assets that Yahoo can leverage. In fact, we also share having a vested interest in advising Yahoo how it can achieve greater success with Flickr, since we each have thousands of images there, tagged and in groups, sets, and ranked by the community. It's absolutely worth encouraging the fallen (but far from dead) horse Flickr to get back up, and get back in the race.
The Explore blacklist is simply a liability for Flickr while it drives photographers to other sites and while it minimizes contributions to Flickr/Getty (reducing Yahoo revenue). The change in Yahoo management provides an opportunity for investment in Flickr, both the development of new features and the elimination or improvement of dysfunctional ones. Any investment Yahoo makes in Flickr can help motivate competing developments by Google and/or Facebook (perhaps eventually Apple as well). With choices in the market, everybody wins. Everybody who isn't blacklisted.
Flickr has actually done me a great service, encouraging me to spend the majority of my time elsewhere. I hope to help them in return. Now that I have thousands of images on Google+, I hope that the strategic value of Flickr's indexing (tags, groups, etc), content ranking, and full-featured search capability is fully recognized, in case Yahoo remains dead in the water with Flickr.
(Note: "Payed is the past tense of pay, which means to give money for something." – American Heritage Dictionary, http://www.yourdictionary.com/payed)
Well, you are wrong on one point here, +Jeff Sullivan. It's Getty that's minimizing contributions to Flickr/Getty. They closed their artists pool early in June "for the summer" and it's still not back open. So the only photos that have been added to Getty in the last five months are specific cases where a client has inquired about a particular photo. At least I think that part is still open. I don't know for sure since I've had no requests. So the Flickr/Getty partnership is currently working for nobody.
But on a more positive note, hopefully Flickr will revisit the "Flickr Stock" project they canned when they partnered with Getty instead.
+Matt Shalvatis Getty routinely adds new photos to the collection. I get asked for new photos on a regular basis that are not specific client requests. They just have a strong stable of photographers now and so it's just as easy to get new photos from what catches their eye. They probably feel like they know what they are looking for more than we do in making suggestions to them. Also with the artist's pool there was pressure on them to have to look at everything submitted whether they had time or not from a community perspective.
My point about the interestingness algorithm failing was simply from the standpoint of it ignoring images favorited by one out of every few visitors., i.e. the feature/algorithm not actually finding or presenting interestingness. Why utterly misrepresent what I'm saying, rather than simply engage on the point I actually do make?
Actually the point you seemed to be making, at least temporarily, was that your photos deserve to stay in Explore indefinitely since you have bills to pay and they are evidently better than “uninteresting and unengaging content [that’s] being selected instead.” That’s the vibe I’m taking issue with, my friend. It’s not that I don’t think your photos are awesome—they are—or that you don’t deserve to make a living from their awesomeness—you do—it’s the faint whiff of entitlement. We all have cameras. Many of us have kids. Many of us have mortgages. And many of us live here with you in the expensive state of CA. But not all of us have an ego that assumes a personal conspiracy is taking place, while simultaneously trying to argue it’s an issue that affects everyone (which is disingenuous at best). It’s a bigger pond now. Simple as that.
Even if your conspiracy theory is correct (eh), it’s not likely to be rectified any time soon given the uncertain direction of Yahoo at the moment. And again, the spirit of Flickr, or at least its former spirit, is somewhat at odds with the interests of people like you. If I had my wish, Yahoo never would have gotten involved at all. But they did, and nobody knows the direction Flickr and Yahoo is ultimately going to go. If Flickr becomes the stock-photography arm of Yahoo then you’ll be all set. But nobody knows.
More recently I've brought my photography to Google+, which has been several hundred times more effective at generating contacts (831k here).
Yes, and of those 831k contacts, barely over half a dozen commenting here. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between G+ and Flickr.
This is probably just one of those cases where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. While I think we agree on practical points, we are coming at the discussion from completely different angles. And that’s okay. Big world…many horses, many races.
I'll have to disagree with you on these points +Jeff Sullivan, on getting into explore (and meaning this as a general statement to getting promoted on social media, I hesitate to make because as I stated earlier, I do not and have never used flickr):
"Taking better pictures is one option. We were all starting out at one point, but we worked diligently on our craft and improved over the years."
"Take better, more interesting pictures. (Not you personally, I didn't look at your photos.) Isn't that the stated goal of Explore, to show off "interestingness? Today, it fails."
Unfortunately, with all due respect, those kind of sentiments I think do come across as +Angela Henderson stated "with a whiff of entitlement". And I also agree with her that your work is awesome and your success thus far is not undeserved. But there is a tone that came out there that surprised me a bit and, even if it was unintended, may come across as a little offensive to many who take great pride in their work.
I'm sure (here's the hesitation) that there are amazing photographers using flickr for years and uploading amazing images that have never been on explore. The statistical chances of this not happening are just too remote too consider.
I don't think that this needs to be stated but here goes: interestingness or quality does not equal popularity
This is certainly being played out on G+
I have been working on my craft diligently for many years. I take well executed photographs. Exposed correctly. Excellent focus. They are interesting to me, but that does not make them interesting to the majority. In fact, if I ran most of those photos through Photomatix and ended up with halos everywhere and unrealistic reflections, they would probably be better received.
The same is true in a lot of aspects of life. Pop music is not necessarily the best music. It's artists don't necessarily have greater knowledge of music theory, have not necessarily studied great classical masterpieces.
Bringing up your 830k contacts here as an endorsement of google+ over flickr does not help your argument, in fact it detracts from it. Your argument against the blacklist if it indeed exists (and if it does I agree that it should go) is that it holds you back unfairly, while possibly exposing less deserving photographers and photographs to more attention. Well, you've got the opposite situation here: 830k contacts, 92% of which came from a system you at one time openly and passionately spoke out against. How many other photographers are unfairly held back by not receiving benefits from that system? Photographers who may have more medical bills, more car repairs, more children, etc.
+Angela Henderson, "But not all of us have an ego that assumes a personal conspiracy is taking place,"
Assumes? As Thomas Hawk, explained, "Flickr later confirmed to me that I had in fact been blacklisted." So we're told in very clear terms that Flickr does personally target specific customers. I have an issue with that.
Grossly misrepreseting Thomas and I seems to be your modus operandi here. I see that you've deleted your off-topic attack on Thomas which started your cascade. I'm done responding to your gross misrepresentations and ad hominem remarks. Whatever beef you have with us apparently existed before you arrived, and clearly, giving you more text for you to portray out of context isn't going to address that.
+Scott Horwath That comment of mine was partly a response to a response, dragging affirmative action into the conversation. (How far off topic can we get?) You mention that you're not familiar with Flickr and Explore… Explore is not described as being intended as some sort of an affirmative action tool. That's why I stated this:
"My point about the interestingness algorithm failing was simply from the standpoint of it ignoring images favorited by one out of every few visitors., i.e. the feature/algorithm not actually finding or presenting interestingness."
If you have any interest in confirming my intent (rather than piling on to misrepresentations of it), I emphatically do not ask to have my images placed in Explore. I'll take my chances. I'm simply offended that some wonk in a back room at Yahoo has the power and role to randomly demote certain photographers. It's sad to see a site with certain aspects of very strong technology dragged down in that way. I shoot with other Flickr photographers with similar frustrations on roughly a weekly basis. If some other Flickr members want some sort of an affirmative action boost, that's a case they can make with Flickr; I'm commenting on the existing features, particularly the blacklist.
The 830k mention was in response to the suggestion that I need to "diversify" beyond Flickr (also off topic, delivered in an unnecessarily condescending way) I could have quoted instead the 60k contacts I gained on Google+ without any Google mention, still 20X the contacts I have on Flickr. A couple of my images recently hit What's Hot here on Google+, and received 900-1600 +1s. Like Explore, it's a content discovery tool.
You're right, I've had a lot to say about blacklists, and reverse blacklists. I've stated my case continuously for over a year. Scoble probably stated the case against lists of promoted people most clearly. He worked for a key Google exec in the past. If he can't influence the decisions, I can't. Scoble also stated that from a career standpoint he couldn't afford not to accept the offer when presented. I'm in that same boat. (Even George Lepp is making blog posts advising landscape photographers in essence "Keep your day job".)
We have to live in the world which exists. Sometimes we can change it, sometimes we can't. Will I take the opportunity to advise Flickr on the destructive nature of their policy? Absolutely. Having invested so many years in getting my work well indexed on the site, it's worth a post or two.
Hello! I just came across this article because I was interested in my exclusion from explore.
I have been in Explore a few times but it has been over four years since I've been allowed to take part in it. I think it's unfair considering the amount of money I've paid for pro accounts & the images that I've uploaded.
Since 2009 I've probably uploaded 2-5 images a week & each of them get their fair share of views/faves/comments.
I'm just wondering how I get my account removed from the blacklist – is it simply just a case of emailing them & asking? I appreciate any help in the matter as I think it's unfair of them to keep my account blacklisted for this long. Thank you.