The famously-sensitive users of Flickr have reacted with outrage at Yahoo!'s decision to stick its logo on the photo-sharing service. The new Flickr/Yahoo! logo Well, Yahoo! should have had some idea of what would happen, following the backlash against allowing Flickr users to upload videos. The purists didn't want that, and …
It's not just flickr....
I was also annoyed when my BT Internet email became BT Yahoo and they moved my email over to what is effectively a Yahoo account without the ads.
I don't mind it too much as they have a nice webmail interface, but it would have been nice to be able to say sod-off I'll keep my POP3 non yahoo account thanks... if they had kept it separate it wouldn't be possible for yahoo's vulnerability to affect the safety of my email account! (although the password is suitably high-strength, so it should withstand a brute-force attack for quite some time hopefully).
As for the flickr logo, yes I think it's an eyesore too... but frankly, I had more annoying things on my mind when I saw it, it does ruin the style of the flickr homepage though.
(I can't complain too much though, as it was the BTInternet -->BTYahoo change that gave me free flickr in the first place! :) )
What do you expect if you hang out in the bitch and moan forums.
I'm an active user of Flickr, but in groups about photography and nobody has said a thing.
Even 10,000 complaints would be a minuscule proportion of the user base.
If they really want something to bitch and moan about, maybe they should see if they can get the admins to do something about the hardcore porn shock monkeys that regularly spam offensive images across many of the groups.
Re: I'll show them insulting
> this is far more than just a new logo: It's a rude, condescending insult to all of us!!!
If they genuinely think that's a rude, condescending insult, they've clearly never visited The Reg's comments pages. "Oh look, the company that has bought and paid for the service I use for free wants to put their logo on it. Let's make a noise whilst sitting on our fat arses doing fuck-all of any practical use to show our displeasure". Whining freetards!
Mistake in the Grammar
Clearly the brand name is: Yahoo!
with the ! as part of the brand identity and Yahoo! device.
So, if you wish to end the sentence with an exclamation mark, the only correct way to do this would be:
We made Flickr! Not Yahoo!!
Quite a good alternative here: http://www.fotopedia.com
"we made Flickr! Not Yahoo!"
Complaining about Yahoo! stealing the brand and he calls it "Flickr!" -- he's been synergised!
I'm more concerned...
...about who may well end up owning *Yahoo!* in the coming months (clues: Redmond; glass panels you look through; "all your pics are belong to us", etc...).
My Flickr Pro account comes up for renewal next month - frankly, I'm not sure I want to cough up for another year if Yahoo! is about to get Borg-ed by the Ballmer Collective...
@Your "typical user"
".....we made Flickr! Not Yahoo!"
With an unneeded exclamation mark on "Flickr"? Way to go arsehat......
"All of us, who have been loyal to the original concept, and who loves photography, we made Flickr!"
No, Ludicorp made Flickr. That's why, when Yahoo! bought it, they gave the money to the people who founded Ludicorp, rather than to you.
deviantART is still independent
And is very popular both with amateur and professional photographers and other artists.
Free? I pay for my Flickr, pro account natch?
Though I don't care about the logo, I can still store my photos on there, so what's the problem?
@I'm more concerned...
Hmm, yes that would be a worrying turn of events, the thing I like about flickr though is that has a decent community, full size photo capabilities and an excellent organiser and interface, so I'm loathe to go elsewhere, it's just a shame these things* keep getting foisted on an otherwise excellent, clean and easy to use site... (not counting porn-spamming, but I've not seen evidence of this in the groups I'm in)
I also like it because it's huge community allows me to get feedback on my work and ideas for future shoots, whereas most sites are for posting holiday pics and ebay pictures that are of a rubbish quality, have no community or are laden with ads... (eg. photobucket or fakebore(facebook)).
*these things being Flickr Video, Yahoo and the now rumoured Microsoft hideousness...
Flickr is scary enough already: most of the random pictures from the recently uploaded list seem to be either transvestites showing off their new frocks or voyeurs taking pictures of women's legs in the street. I'm sure there are a few people using it legitimately for proper photography (though the serious photographers I know don't post anything other than drunken party photos there) but even DeviantArt, which is 90% pictures of vampires and Harry Potter knobbing werewolves, has more real artists.
The Flickr community is fast becoming a Brand
Ahh, it all makes sense now.
Emphasising the Yahoo! brand, tie-ups with photo marketeers like Getty ... over recent months, the Flickr admins have clearly been under instruction to 'clean up' the site and a great many pro (i.e. paying) users have had their accounts summarily deleted for some alleged infraction of Flickr's infamously vague TOS.
Some one says you 'stole' their photo - DELETE account
Some one says you're posting voyeuristic images - DELETE account
You question the authority of the admins - DELETE account
Even if they warn you that your account is due to be deleted they do not discuss either the images that have been called into question (so you don't know which ones need to be taken down - let only discuss the merits of the allegations) or give you any clue as to how long you have until they pull the plug.
I love the Flickr *community* and the site's toolset is pretty good but the admins are basically a bunch of cowardly and vindictive children who are scared of facing down specious claims so they just bully innocent contributors instead.
Oh no the evil companies ruin everything it's soooo unfair
I love how people want everything and they want it free. Running Flickr doesn't come cheap and I expect Yahoo! would like to associate their name to it to help generate a free bit of advertising for their other services.
If you are all about the photography then surely it's the photographs that count and not the wretched site's logo.
I assume the camera you took these photograps with wasn't made by some global corporation who stuck their brand name all over it. If it was then they clearly don't care about the art of photography man. Some mega global corps are ok, but others aren't yeah?
With a bit of luck it the complainers might wander off and hopefully take their tacky, cliched, HDR'd pictures with them....
Well yes a pretty good community, and a few do-gooders who object to quite innocent photo's:
Proof that the Internet makes you stupid
Dear Flickrers, Flickr was created to *make a profit,* you fucking ignoramus dingleberries. The founders have succeeded in this goal by selling the company off to Yahoo!, pocketing (sorry, trousering, forgot what site I was on) shedloads of cash and leaving you sorry bastards to whine impotently on the forums. You now have two choices:
1) Suck it up
2) Start your own Web site
You can forestall #1 with continued whining, but we know that you're all too bloody useless to do #2 (except for poo-flinging purposes, of course).
Re: Re: I'll show them insulting
Well, projecting much, are we, Bassey?
I myself pay for the thing. Not that I really care about the logo change -- we always get reminded that Flickr was part of Yahoo! anyway, when logging out and seeing a message in huge typeface asking whether one wants to log out of Flickr only or out of the whole Yahoo! network instead...
Yes, we users made Fickr.
If we hadn't done out part, then Yahoo would have had nothing to buy.
That's spelling, not grammar. Though you might be able to make a case for punctuation.