nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
- Location
- Launceston & Sydney
- Name
- Nick Clark
I thought the discussion was going along quite nicely..?
You made a point - I made a counter-point. Nothing more to it than that...For goodness sake Ray don't be so literal minded. It's perfectly obvious how I am using the phrase and why.
It really does seem that any attempt on this forum to discuss anything other than lenses or, menu systems, or to offer the phrase "great capture" is doomed to crash into a wall of obfuscation.
And so, not only do the turkeys vote for Christmas, they do the butchers' marketing for them ...
Yes, I think you still have to start a slideshow in flickr to get fullscreen (that is without using the browser's fullscreen - F11 in firefox).In flickr unless I'm mistaken, the only way to get into real 'fullscreen' is to view an entire album or photo stream and click on the 'slideshow' icon, which then begins a fullscreen Ken Burns-style slideshow of every photo in the group. Definite Win for ipernity, unless I'm missing something?
Get to the batch organizer. at the bottom panel, click on select all, then drag them into the top pane. Then hit up the "permissions" drop down menu. Choose the top selection "who can see, comment, etc" and there you will find the option to make them all private.
I kind of feel the same way. I'm not sure I get what's nefarious about this. How do they use the tags to "monetize"? If it's just a matter of making the site an easier place for people to search for photos of a particular type, and thereby enable them to sell more advertising, I don't have any problem with that. Doing something useful or doing something better is generally rewarded by making more money as a result. I don't see them doing anything that somehow invades my privacy or steals anything from me. Maybe it will allow more people to see a few of my photos if they come up by searching for some of the tags they've applied? There's no downside to that for me that I can think of. If I don't want something generally seen, I just make it private when I put it up. If I'm missing something and someone can explain the dark side of this, I'm all ears. But on the surface, I don't get the outrage - not saying there's no good reason for it, but not one readily apparent to me...Two words; 'knickers' and 'twist'.
I'm not a professional, I upload my photographs to share them with like-minded people. I prefer a free hosting service so if Flickr want to tag my photographs, what's the big deal? You should see the data Google collects and stores from your every move on-line... And that's only the veritable tip of the iceberg.
When you're on a photo's main page, all you have to do is hit the "L" key (for "large"?) and it toggles into a full screen view, or I guess full window view. It doesn't actually go to the full screen, but as large as your window is, it will fill to the limits of the menu bar and stuff at the top...Yes, I think you still have to start a slideshow in flickr to get fullscreen (that is without using the browser's fullscreen - F11 in firefox).
But at least they abandoned the forced Ken-Burns zooming in their latest update. Now we can finally look at the photos again in their slideshow...
I kind of feel the same way. I'm not sure I get what's nefarious about this. How do they use the tags to "monetize"? If it's just a matter of making the site an easier place for people to search for photos of a particular type, and thereby enable them to sell more advertising, I don't have any problem with that. Doing something useful or doing something better is generally rewarded by making more money as a result. I don't see them doing anything that somehow invades my privacy or steals anything from me. Maybe it will allow more people to see a few of my photos if they come up by searching for some of the tags they've applied? There's no downside to that for me that I can think of. If I don't want something generally seen, I just make it private when I put it up. If I'm missing something and someone can explain the dark side of this, I'm all ears. But on the surface, I don't get the outrage - not saying there's no good reason for it, but not one readily apparent to me...
-Ray
Bill,Ray, it would be fair to say that your views on this and mine are poles apart. If I have created something I own it, lock, stock and barrel. The Flickr monetisation model is anathema to me.
For the record I am responsible for customer experience ("CX") solution provision across Europe for a tier 1 global systems integrator. In my day job I advise major enterprises how to monetise their multi-channel digital interactions. In other words I am no luddite. This is not about progress it is about the way Flickr asserts their rights to use your - or my - work for their financial benefit.
Over my dead body.