
Flickr's redesign makes it a photo service actually worth sharing - danso
http://danwin.com/2013/05/flickr-redesign-a-photo-service-worth-sharing/
======
antr
As a former active Flickr user all I can say is that I have gone back to the
product, big time.

I have ditched iPhoto as my archiving software and moved my +150GB of photos
and videos to Flickr. I couldn't be happier. I'd also like to note that I
share zero photos with the public, all my photos are 100% private or shared
with family members/close friends.

Having said that there is plenty of improvement to go:

\- iOS app (maybe it is also the case for the Android app) needs to improve
(auto upload, better integration with iOS, etc). Recently I went on holiday
and only used my iPhone to take pictures (over 5GB), it would be nice for an
easier way to tag + create/add to set + upload photos and videos. By the way,
where is the tablet app?

\- Video is really really bad. Apparently Flickr doesn't support long video
playback (and by long I mean 10 seconds or more - i think). Now a days
(specially with smartphones) video is a big part of albums/experiences. Video
needs to be permitted and nicely integrated within photo albums.

\- Upload via web is nice, but a better Mac/Windows/Linux native app would go
a long way for power users. Better upload resume, tagging, etc.

\- Map view. Something is wrong with the new Flickr, it has a world map view,
but it doesn't read/process any geo location from my pictures - unlike iPhoto
which does this flawlessly. I need to drop one by one the photos into the map
for these to be processed. I also have to say that the Nokia map could be
better, I'd love to see Flickr using Google Maps. Has someone experienced this
same thing?

\- Better album sharing, a la Dropbox, would be great (e.g. allow friends and
family to download an album as *.zip)

These are just a few things I would like to see in the coming updates.

~~~
jseliger
_I have ditched iPhoto as my archiving software and moved my +150GB of photos
and videos to Flickr_

Nice! Glad it works for you. I suspect that a lot of people won't be using
Flickr for everything because of NSFW photos that shouldn't live off the hard
drive. That's certainly a concern for me.

I'd definitely emphasize this: "a better Mac/Windows/Linux native app would go
a long way for power users" is a huge one. Right now the OS X version doesn't
simply default to intelligent settings, which is bothersome: it should start
uploading as soon as a photo is selected (along the lines of Instagram).

~~~
coldtea
> _Nice! Glad it works for you. I suspect that a lot of people won't be using
> Flickr for everything because of NSFW photos that shouldn't live off the
> hard drive. That's certainly a concern for me._

This is the most tangential and unnecessary thing I've read on HN all the
years that I've been here.

I mean, DOH! Your XXX candid shots will stay in your hard drive, how is that a
surprise or relevant to the discussion?

~~~
hnriot
Maybe go back and re-read the comment, it's pretty obvious, but I can spell it
out for the language challenged. He has photos that since some shouldn't be
put on a public photo site, and since sorting them out isn't easy, a local
hard drive based solution is still preferable for him. I should think a lot of
people are in this place. They don't want their children on the web, or their
girlfriend. I realize this country was founded by religious zealots he'll bent
on eliminating any fun, but it's a fact of life that a lot of people have
naked photos!

~~~
coldtea
> _Maybe go back and re-read the comment, it's pretty obvious, but I can spell
> it out for the language challenged._

We, "language challenged" don't need it spelt out thank you, we got it the
first time.

It's not what the comments says we find problematic, is why he deemed it
relevant to say it. I mean since it goes without saying that this situation
applies to some people, and that not everybody can share everything in Flickr.

It's like posting on an article about a cool new email client, and somebody
commenting "Alas, I can't use this for everything I mail, because a lot of
that are physical packages, not just emails". Well, duh!

> _I realize this country was founded by religious zealots he'll bent on
> eliminating any fun, but it's a fact of life that a lot of people have naked
> photos!_

Well, that was not my issue with his comment. For one, I could not care less
-- I'm from another country, and I won't even raise an eyebrow for people
having naked photos (or any kind of fun for that matter).

------
chuhnk
This is the second coming of Flickr, a rebirth, and I couldn't be more
excited. I'm not a power user of Flickr but a fan of what it once was back in
the day. It was a real shame to see it be neglected after the acquisition but
Marissa Mayer has arisen as it's saviour and beyond that the saviour of Yahoo.
For anyone of us it was blatantly obvious how powerful Flickr was and how it
could have continued to dominate the photo sharing social scene. For some
reason Marissa's many predecessors failed to see this. Honestly, if utilised
in the right way, Flickr is a Facebook killer. At the core of Facebook is it's
photo sharing service, take that away from them and it's nothing but useless
news items from people you wish you could block.

~~~
danso
I'm as quick to dismiss re-skinning as any self-righteous dev, but this really
hit the spot for Flickr. Flickr has always had a trove of useful photo
archiving and categorizing features...sometimes I upload photos just because
their geocoding editor is so convenient to use. Many of the other major photo
services lack even simple group creation of photos (I.e. having a single photo
endpoint both be in your "Family memories" and "Summer Vcation" albums)...and
Flickr is by far the best in terms of making it easy to discover old, but
significant photos.

This is not to say that this means Flickr will survive against Facebook,
anymore than quality point and shoot pocket cameras have a chance of revival
in our camera phone era. But Flickr, for now, definitely has the edge in
quality and variety of photos. Even if you think Instagram filters are the
best thing ever, the laws of physics (I.e. optics) limits the vast majority of
their photos to a narrow range limit.

It's worth pointing out that Google Plus has had a better photo album design
than Flickr for awhile now...I just tried them out (again) and saw that they,
for the most part, have most of what makes Flickr useful. However, Gplus is
decidedly focused on social sharing...it's hard to describe how this
drastically impacts its use as a photo service...but using GPlus's photo
feature was, for the first time in a long while, that I've just given up in
frustration in the first five minutes. But this may be just a sign that I've
finally hit old age.

~~~
chuhnk
You make some valid points. I was not aware of the Google+ photo album design
but then again I was only a user when it was mandatory within Google. I don't
personally know anyone outside of Google who uses it. Quite a few public
figures have accounts but none of my friends are on there. Google+ feels like
a very closed community. I've never seen anyone share links to albums on there
whereas someone is always passing around a Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, Imgur or
Dropbox url.

Flickr is almost 10 years old. They've been around longer than anyone right?
It only makes sense that they would have one of the most mature products
relevant to people who want to maintain thousands of photos and share them.

I think we'll see a lot more interesting features for Flickr over the next
year as social and mobile becomes a bigger priority for Yahoo.

~~~
saraid216
You seem desperate to find reasons to dislike G+, so I'll help you out:

<https://plus.google.com/communities/101451257802046158545>

~~~
chuhnk
Oh I have nothing against G+ personally. I just don't use it and none of my
friends do either. If there was a significant level of activity on there or
better content discovery then perhaps I would use it.

~~~
saraid216
Did you actually click on the link and look at the timestamps, or are you just
blowing smoke?

------
tonywebster
I must be the only one who doesn't like Flickr's redesign. Sure, there's some
good benefits from it, but...

\- The lines and colors are harsh

\- The grids on the single image view separate the page in non-equal thirds
which feels awkward

\- A lot of the data elements just run together without labels or any
indication that they're links: <http://i.imgur.com/Szy3Y7Z.png>

\- In 2013, I'm a bit shocked that the site isn't responsive, even if they do
have a good mobile app: <http://i.imgur.com/OMiqoZs.png>

Everything else is okay, but only because they didn't actually redesign the
majority of the site. Go to your groups, stats, etc. and you still see the
nicely organized old Flickr. I'm a fairly active user and usually a big fan of
redesigns and changes, but I don't see myself using it much now.

~~~
aeturnum
The reactions on the Flickr forums are heavily weighted against the redesign
as well. There are lots of little problems I noticed (the links to fullscreen
images on my feed would fullscreen a different image - fixed now), and
hopefully they can run the problems down over the next few weeks. I'm equally
aghast that their mobile website hasn't changed - come on guys. Overall,
though, I really like it. I think it's a much more attractive public face.

------
varjag
OK, coming from a regular user:

\- Your updates and activity entries are now mixed with other people's photos.
That the photos are humongous and your updates are tiny one-liners doesn't
help. You have to eye-grep and scroll the infinite image feed all the way to
the bottom.

\- At the same time, the right bar is occupied with such immensely useful
things as "Flickr Blog", "People you may know" and a patch of empty space.

\- Portrait orientation photos are disadvantaged in the feed layout.

\- The documentation is not updated! It took me some time to find how to share
BBCode in the new layout.

\- Flickr is no longer Safe for Work! If any of your contacts posts a nude
image, instead of tiny thumbnail it gets blown into all its high res goodness.

~~~
cowpewter
I don't like the intermixing of photos and activity either, but you can get to
a feed of activity only by mousing over the You menu in the top left and
choosing Recent Activity, or go directly to <http://www.flickr.com/activity>

Regarding the SFW issue, I know Flickr has safety levels on photos...if you go
to <http://www.flickr.com/account/privacy/> there's a Content Filters section,
but it's not clear if it would apply to your Contacts photostream or only
searches/viewing another member directly. The setting says:

    
    
      Choose a "safety level" that will apply to any site-wide
      searches you perform or member pages you visit on Flickr.
      You can also set the sort of content you'd like to see.

~~~
varjag
Yes, you still can find the activity feed, but for practical purposes it's not
on the front page anymore.

And I'm aware of content filters (since I disabled them). I don't feel like
disabling/reenabling them every evening though.

------
tathagata
The design might be modern but it is very distracting. The photos are
surrounded closely by so many other photos that it is difficult to enjoy the
beauty of a particular photo - it like a painting framed by a gold gilded
frame which is more beautiful than the painting itself. Photography is an art
form but in this new layout the art is overwhelmed by its 'evil' cousin,
design.

~~~
corresation
_The photos are surrounded closely by so many other photos that it is
difficult to enjoy the beauty of a particular photo_

On the "feed" screen, sure, because that's the point of a feed screen --
information density is key. You navigate to a specific photo for immersion.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
Yes, but is it really necessary to have a feed screen in everything? There's
already Facebook and Google+ for that. Flickr was nice because it was geard
towards the less ephemeral. I guess "less ephemeral" goes against the
zeitgeist.

~~~
corresation
But it _is_ a feed of contact photos. The presentation makes sense.

With the flickr redesign (and, more importantly, the massive speed up of their
backend servers), I've looked at dramatically more of my contact and group
photos in the past two days than I did in years prior combined. It makes it so
pleasant and effortless.

------
TorKlingberg
Flickr has long had good features for sharing photos with Creative Commons
licenses, and for searching based on license. Example:
[http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=duck&l=commderiv&ct=...](http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=duck&l=commderiv&ct=0&mt=photos&adv=1)

I am happy this still works. If Flickr gets more popular with photographers,
there will be even more photos available to Wikipedia and other free content
projects.

------
noloqy
With this new move, it seems that Flickr has made a turn towards the domain of
500px.com, also known as providing a stylish way of showcasing your photos.
500px actually used to have a design that was almost an exact match to what
Flickr has now, and still looks remarkably similar.

~~~
robotmay
I launched the beta of my own photo sharing site a few weeks back and the new
Flickr design is somewhat similar in parts (flexible width/tiling photos). It
seemed logical to me to adopt a Pinterest style grid for varying size images,
rather than cropping them all to squares, though I notice that Flickr's design
works more in terms of rows (<https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nature>) than
columns (<https://photographer.io/categories/nature/photographs>).

I'm very curious as to which style people find the easiest to browse.

~~~
prawn
I prefer your index view to theirs.

Just check your page on iPad - the header bar doesn't quite fit.

~~~
robotmay
Sorry for the slow reply!

Aye, the layout is pretty broken on various smaller devices; a fix is in the
works :)

------
rkuykendall-com
I was a huge Flickr user from 2006-2009, but the service stayed in 2006, and
so I moved on. The new changes are very exciting, but I still have one huge
gripe. For a service about to turn 10 years old, being unable to change my URL
is a deal breaker:

I registered my URL in high school, and now I'm starting my masters. My photos
have improved, and so has my online identity.

I'm considering just switching to a new account, but the situation gave me no
faith that Flickr was worth the effort. I look forward to a similar post when
Flickr overhauls the backend.

~~~
whafro
I have this same gripe (about HN too, I suppose). Flickr claims that it's a
philosophical thing - that URLs shouldn't change, so the username I chose when
I first registered years ago should invariably be what I'm associated with for
the rest of my life.

They likely do have the technical ability - when you initially register, your
URL is represented by internal IDs (like 1234567@Z01), and you then choose
your 'friendly' url. So it doesn't seem like a stretch that they could extend
this to allow changes.

~~~
rkuykendall-com
I understand the philosophy of keeping URLs active, but this is taking it to a
new extreme. How about changing URLs every... 5 years or something ridiculous.
I mean, they allow me to delete my account and that would kill URLs, so if
it's between deletion or changing, what is the difference?

------
sergiotapia
I find the website really slow when scrolling, as if the Javascript engine
were choking.

And I'm using a 8GB RAM, i7 laptop.

------
thomaslutz
What is the best tool to move all my photos from my local harddrives
(unorganized currently) to Flickr in an easy way?

~~~
junto
Flickr Uploadr works for me: <http://www.flickr.com/tools/>

~~~
Groxx
As I mentioned elsewhere[0], I've had lots of problems with their Mac
uploader. I'd heartily recommend sticking with the web upload until it's
updated, or using some third party tool (if you have tons, this might be the
best option - web is limited to 200 at a time, not resumable if something goes
wrong).

[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5758033>

------
pydanny
What I don't like about the new Flickr is that if you look at single photo,
it's presented on a black background. While this is stylish, it's also feels
distracting.

I miss the white background.

------
meowzero
They're late to the game. I use Facebook, Google+, and Dropbox to share and
view photos. Right now, Flickr doesn't give me any reason why I should switch.

Facebook is already good because everyone uses Facebook. It's a convenient way
to tag, share, and comment on your photos of your friends.

Google+ has a great Communities section where people share and post photos to
other people. Also, a lot of photographers hang out there.

Dropbox is great if you want people to download your photos. They
automatically zip the photos up. Or if they have a dropbox account, you can
share your folder with them.

I do like they give us a TB of space. I think if they make a way for Flickr to
sync my Lightroom catalogue and all my RAWs, I think that would be a good use
of that TB of space.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> They're late to the game. I use Facebook, Google+, and Dropbox to share and
> view photos. Right now, Flickr doesn't give me any reason why I should
> switch.

Let me give you one: full quality image.

Aside from Dropbox, the other services will compress your images. If you're an
enthusiast and expect people to see your photos in all it's glory, that's
important. And while Dropbox does that, it doesn't really supports the concept
of galleries and such.

------
nicholassmith
I think one of the interesting bits of info to bubble up since the redesign
was launched was they said mid-March was when they geared up and went for it.
Even if they had bits of it done they did a great deal in a small time frame
and made massive improvements, and it's a great sign for Flickr because
they've got room to get better.

I was a paid up Flickr Pro user for a while, and I actually let it expire this
year as I'd decided it wasn't going anywhere but this has really got me
interested again. Seems like Yahoo understands the potential value of Flickr,
it might not compete against Facebook in terms of raw numbers and standard
phone camera photos but there's potential to get the serious enthusiasts back.

------
dabeeeenster
Anyone know of a decent way to sync a set of photos in folders with Flickr?
Mac or Linux...

~~~
sagarun
On Linux, there is a photo app named shotwell. shotwell has a flickr plugin
that works like a charm

------
maximem
/ _almost off topic/_ I love the history Flick'r! Back in 04, made for
gamers... A brillant turn over induced by users misusing the website uploading
their holidays photos... A lesson to keep in mind, always listen to your
customers!

------
liotier
Narcissism aside, why did they drop the view counts ? I used to find them
useful to see what people actually look at and therefore which of my pictures
work and which don't. Comments and 'likes' are good, but only view counts are
honest.

~~~
djloche
For reference: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/yourusernamehere/stats/> should
provide you with what you're looking for (although it may be a paid feature, I
am not sure as I have been paying for flickr for years now...)

~~~
habi
Stats are only available for (new and old) paying members

------
ekr
Even with its new design, I find it surprisingly primitive. I don't have an
account, but if i try to watch a set from some user as a slideshow, I have no
option to scale the picture to my screen size (or at least no obvious way of
doing it). Furthermore, when I rightclick, I get a list of sizes, but those
links only embed a full-size picture into a new page. How useful is that.

Anyway, needs lots of improvements.

On an unrelated note, I am planning to make a backup of all my ebooks there,
by storing them as pictures (something like
<https://github.com/meltingice/flickr-store>, but better).

------
tlogan
I wonder if Flickr API ToS is going to be updated. Last time I tried to
integrate Flickr API, the rules were that you need special permission to use
Flickr API for commercial use. I sent multiple emails and nothing happend.

Is this going to change?

------
xwowsersx
I'm really picky about the way my photos are presented and right now flickr
looks cleaner to me than G+ photos. Flickr puts the photos at the forefront
and I also like the photostream idea in general.

For me though it feels really hard to switch everything over to Flickr bc
there are other issues. For example, with Google I get auto backup of photos
taken on my phone which, as we all know, is accounting for a greater and
greater percentage of total pics taken.

So that's kind of a big deal to me.

Anyhow, assuming I wanted to transfer ALL of my photos from G+ to Flickr, how
the hell would I go about doing that?!

------
luiperd
Overall I really like the new Flickr layout, especially the main photo stream.
It's more of a Portfolio that one can use rather than a collection of your
photos one after the other.

What I don't like is the single photo page. The photo itself is nice and big,
which I like. But once you scroll past it it's pretty much a cluster fuck of
information that looks very much out of place. It looks like they didn't even
bother to make it blend well with the page.

------
josephlord
What are the privacy/access controls/sharing facilities like? Are the terms of
service and privacy policy OK?

A convenient way to store online and share selected photos and videos would be
good. I don't trust FB/Google with images of myself and my family or my geo-
tags. I would automatically be similarly sceptical of Yahoo bet a quick glance
at the main TOS didn't show anything obviously objectionable.

~~~
pessimism
I wrote a thing about how your favourites are public and searchable with not
opt-out on HN: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5756487>.

Other than that, Flickr is one of the most privacy-conscientious services I
know—which is why it took me by surprise that there weren’t controls for my
favourites.

Flickr’s (general) emphasis on privacy and ownership rights are their main
features to me. Maybe those are just hold-overs from the early days when
monetizing your users’ data weren’t in vogue, though.

~~~
josephlord
Thanks, your link is to this topic though. I think you meant:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5751591>

I've also asked a question on that topic.

~~~
pessimism
Thanks. Got a bit recursive there.

------
snogglethorpe
ARgh, and they still haven't released the Android app (and apparently the iOS
app) in Japan.

It's available in Peru, it's available in Ukraine—but not Japan (which is much
larger, richer, and almost certainly has more photographers than those two
countries), and this has been the situation for ages.

WTF, Flickr...

[And unfortunately Flickr has always had a very annoying habit of completely
stonewalling on such issues.]

------
tonylemesmer
I like the new Flickr. Its made me want to use it again. Both for the large
amount of storage, the new Android app and the website. I've not had time to
fully try everything out yet.

Facebook's dominance may mean its too little too late except for the crowd who
detest using Facebook (myself included).

------
neovive
It's great to see Yahoo! in the news so often. Growing up in the first
Internet boom, Yahoo! still holds a place in my heart as my first search
engine and homepage.

Flickr has been a great asset for Yahoo! but has lost much of its momentum,
especially with the rising popularity of Pinterest.

------
brandonsowers
This is a really good model of product resurrection. Now lets what yahoo do
more of the same thing.

------
caycep
What I'm wondering is: are the android and iOS apps being developed separately
now?

------
xmmx
Can someone comment on the new flickr vs PIcasa?

~~~
Groxx
So far I'm liking Flickr better, though I've only dipped my toe in. Uploads
(on the site, see [0]) are fast, organizing is fast (though the batch organize
is weird IMO), everything can be made private by default easily, and ONE
TERABYTE OF STORAGE. It's also much better for browsing than Picasa Web
Albums, which are _functional_ but don't really do it well. Flickr makes
browsing quite pretty (in a good way, mostly) and generally better for showing
your photos to someone.

Picasa the website is fine, and does just about everything _right_ , though
generally not in the most ideal way. Privacy controls are rich and you can
still link directly to a photo to bypass (and revoke existing links). Albums
are functional, face tags are functional (though now they use G+ accounts if
you link to contacts... not happy, but I guess it works), comments are a bit
hidden but work. I have several gigabytes in it (and bought more), no
problems, no complaints. Main downside is it has definitely not been updated
along with the rest of Google's properties, and it integrates very poorly for
the most part (notifications, accounts, weird partial G+ linkage...).

Picasa the application is... different, but decent. It's surprisingly good in
a number of ways, and I'd recommend it over iPhoto if only because iPhoto has
routinely lost my data during updates, and slows to a crawl after several
thousand photos. Picasa stays fast, searches quickly, organizes oddly but
effectively. It leaves your photos in folders that (basically) match the UI,
which may or may not be a good thing for you.

Picasa the application _when synced to your Google account_ is slick 95% of
the time (it all works as you'd expect), and a total hell-hole of duplication,
sync failing, and filename mangling the remaining 5% (though most of that only
rears its head when you hook it up for the first time). The 'Sync to web'
on/off switch for each album is handy when it works, but hasn't generally
handled turning on dozens at once.

I would honestly recommend against the syncing aspect of it, though sadly it's
a major selling point. If you can hook it up once and leave it that way you
probably won't have much trouble, but I did a lot of reconnecting, and it
definitely got confused sometimes.

[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5758033>

------
orangethirty
Flickr seems to be down at the moment.

------
mrto2013
But i still prefer the old design

------
fakeer
All said and done, somehow I feel it looks a little _Instagrammy_.

\- More clutter

\- Less clean

\- Congested, as in a little border would have done no harm.

\- Looks _loud_ but maybe that's just _Instagrammatical_.

\- For me, at least, the home page takes longer to load.

\- Maybe earlier they had the site built for photographers and now they have
made it for everyone

\- just like lady Mayer said.

~~~
astine
Where are you getting that? It looks more like Pinterest than Instagram.
There's less whitespace, but the old design was more complicated. It's more
colorful now and there is more focus on the photos.

------
analog
It is pretty nice but navigation between photos still feels a little clunky.
I'd have expected the 'next' and 'previous' arrows to slide/load in the pre-
loaded image rather than generating a full page refresh.

Still very nice all in all though and a terabyte of free space makes it an
easy choice for the default place to store all your photos. Goodbye iCloud for
me.

~~~
danso
FWIW, yesterday I saw a "fail whale" page on Flickr for the first time ever
(though it was of a baby panda). I don't know if that's a consequence of
infrastructure changes or increased traffic...I don't think it's the latter
but perhaps the increase number of fetches on each normal page load is causing
a burden.

Also, the simple prev/nav between single photos has always been unacceptably
slow...hopefully that gets fixed, as that's also kind of key to the viewing
experience

