Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Brickshelf?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Paul Baulch wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Everyone else, get on Flickr.
|
No, Flickr is a load of garbage. It’s way, way slower to load than just about
any other image-hosting site I’ve ever used, it has crap size restrictions on
the actual image presentations for no reason other than it wants to maintain
a “site look”, which, frankly, is totally unnecessary for an image-hosting
site, and it tempts users to add pointless fluff that tends to hinder rather
than help examination of images.
People should try Maj, or Yesalbum, or Photobucket, or google for “image
hosting” if they don’t like those, but for the love of all that is sane in
this world DON’T use Flickr.
|
I’d have to take great exception to this point. I love Flickr. It’s an
absolutely fantastic.
There have been slower periods, certainly, but honestly I’ve only noticed them
pre-Yahoo! acquisition when they were growing in leaps and bounds and were still
a private entity. (I remember a number of times over the years Brickshelf having
the same issues) I have been actively using Flickr for a while now and have more
than 2,000 photos posted.
Maybe I don’t understand the point you mean but it absolutely does not have
“crap size restrictions”. I’ve uploaded 3000pixel wide images regularly without
problems and Flickr automatically resizes and posts multiple sizes, each with a
unique permalink. For $25/year, I have unlimited uploads of unlimited bandwidth
of unlimited storage. Not bad. Not bad at all.
As far as the “site look” being “totally unnecessary”... again, couldn’t
disagree more. Flickr isn’t meant to be simply “image hosting”. It’s meant to
allow people to not only post, but to share, discuss, engage with photos.
Brickshelf was 99% image hosting sites like MOCpages had to popup in order to
add a layer of context to the photos. Flickr does both of these things. It’s not
a bad workflow, it’s just different.
You’re absolutely right to point out that if you want a duplicate the experience
and functionality of Brickshelf that you should look at Yesalbum or Photobucket.
My question, however, is - in 2007, why would you want to duplicate Brickshelf
functionality? (This isn’t intended to be run or downplay the contribution that
Brickshelf added over the years, just an honest question about what we want for
the future)
One last note about Flickr - as a company (both pre- and post- Yahoo!), they
have always had a fantastic “community focus”. They listen, they react, they
care. As someone who studies the company+community relationship for a living, I
have been continually amazed and impressed with how they react to and treat
their community. That should be important to a group of fans like ours.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Brickshelf?
|
| (...) Sorry to follow-up to my own post (I wish I could simply edit the existing post instead). Forgot to mention that Flickr also has an incredible robust API that allows other sites to tap into the functionality of Flickr with relative ease. Three (...) (17 years ago, 15-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Brickshelf?
|
| (...) No, Flickr is a load of garbage. It's way, way slower to load than just about any other image-hosting site I've ever used, it has crap size restrictions on the actual image presentations for no reason other than it wants to maintain a "site (...) (17 years ago, 15-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
