![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Flickr News Of Interest
Mar. 24th, 2007 10:05 amI've stated, on the record, a few times that while I like the services that Flickr (www.flickr.com) is providing photographers both amateur and pro, the Service seems a bit split-personality about one topic. That topic is nude photography, and to be fair it's a sensitive topic so they probably were justified in their split personality. Their acronym NIPSA (Not In Publicly Seen Areas) is what they applied to nude photography (art or otherwise), and there are many folk who produce that kind of work and would log in one day to find their entire photostream (not just the nudes) now marked 'Friends Only'. Usually because the Admins' received complaints from 'offended' viewers who 'discovered' the nude photographs while exploring...
I'm not going there today.
A couple of days ago, I posted an LJ 'friends only' request for people to follow the link to my Flickr, because I'd tried to connect while not logged in and received the message, 'Mad Shutter-bug has no photographs available to you.' Now, while I do have nude art on my Flickr, all of it is currently set to 'Friends Only' anyway, and because of that practice/policy mentioned above. The very few exceptions to this were the photos I'd then cross-posted to nude photography groups. Flickr would kindly remind me at that time that the photo I cross-posted is marked 'Friends', and did I want to continue. Since Flickr also adjusted the settings on that photo so that only those people who found it in that group could see it, why yes I continued.
I'd tested this by finding those particular groups while not logged in (an Anonymous user), could see my photos in that group, but none of those photos when I followed to my Flickr photostream. So, I figured it's good.
Then, that funky message above. Hmm...
Well, my post here is still 'Friends Only' not becuase it's particularly private, but because it's not particularly vital that I get more info than I did. First of all, despite some oddities about the linkage, everyone who followed it could see the publicly available photos. Later that same day in fact, I could see my own photos again. Only that short period transpired when there were no photos available for anonymous viewers to see.
Today, I think I know why. Flickr admins installed a new filtering system, which individual subscribers are able to set to their preferences, and which I'll summarise as 'Mild, Medium, and Hot'. Or, something like 'No, I never want to see naked breasts' to 'I'm quite responsible for my own sensibilities, thank you, and I'll take the heat for being offended if I find something that offends me.'
So in breif, the Flickr admins are experimenting in shifting the onus of what someone wants to see (or wants their children to see) onto them, rather than the provider of the image.
I'm not sure yet how this will affect the truly anonymous, unregisterd with Flickr viewer; needs a bit more research on my part. I'm going to guess that the filter for the anonymous will be 'Mild'; it's the safest course of action they could choose. I expect I will be experimenting with this myself.
I'm not going there today.
A couple of days ago, I posted an LJ 'friends only' request for people to follow the link to my Flickr, because I'd tried to connect while not logged in and received the message, 'Mad Shutter-bug has no photographs available to you.' Now, while I do have nude art on my Flickr, all of it is currently set to 'Friends Only' anyway, and because of that practice/policy mentioned above. The very few exceptions to this were the photos I'd then cross-posted to nude photography groups. Flickr would kindly remind me at that time that the photo I cross-posted is marked 'Friends', and did I want to continue. Since Flickr also adjusted the settings on that photo so that only those people who found it in that group could see it, why yes I continued.
I'd tested this by finding those particular groups while not logged in (an Anonymous user), could see my photos in that group, but none of those photos when I followed to my Flickr photostream. So, I figured it's good.
Then, that funky message above. Hmm...
Well, my post here is still 'Friends Only' not becuase it's particularly private, but because it's not particularly vital that I get more info than I did. First of all, despite some oddities about the linkage, everyone who followed it could see the publicly available photos. Later that same day in fact, I could see my own photos again. Only that short period transpired when there were no photos available for anonymous viewers to see.
Today, I think I know why. Flickr admins installed a new filtering system, which individual subscribers are able to set to their preferences, and which I'll summarise as 'Mild, Medium, and Hot'. Or, something like 'No, I never want to see naked breasts' to 'I'm quite responsible for my own sensibilities, thank you, and I'll take the heat for being offended if I find something that offends me.'
So in breif, the Flickr admins are experimenting in shifting the onus of what someone wants to see (or wants their children to see) onto them, rather than the provider of the image.
I'm not sure yet how this will affect the truly anonymous, unregisterd with Flickr viewer; needs a bit more research on my part. I'm going to guess that the filter for the anonymous will be 'Mild'; it's the safest course of action they could choose. I expect I will be experimenting with this myself.
