[Resolved]For all the Flickr pro users

Ricky91t

Hello all,
My flickr pro subscription recently ran out over christmas and i havn't got round to upgrading it(Probably won't)Might just move to pixie

But while i was on holiday i uploaded about 300 full res photo and set them to hidden and they're gone!Along with all but 200 of my most recent

My question is has anyone else had this issue when their pro subscription ran out?And if i get another will i get the 800 odd pics back?

Thanks all,

Not liking flickr anymore :mad:

Fajitas!

They're all still there, but you'll have to resubscribe to get them back.

trishw78

I have a free account. Some of my photos aren't showing up. Why?

On a free account, Flickr limits the number of photos displayed.

If you have fewer than 200 photos, we display them all. If you have more than 200 photos, only the most recent 200 are displayed.

Your photos are not removed from Flickr, only from the list of your photos. If you blogged a photo and it no longer appears in your list, it will still appear on your blog, and the photo's Flickr page will still work just fine.

If some of your photos aren't showing up, don't panic! Just upload some fresh ones. Or upgrade to a Pro Account.

Note: If your free account is inactive for 90 consecutive days, it will be deleted.

From the FAQ page

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

Hello all,
My flickr pro subscription recently ran out over christmas and i havn't got round to upgrading it(Probably won't)Might just move to pixie

But while i was on holiday i uploaded about 300 full res photo and set them to hidden and they're gone!Along with all but 200 of my most recent

My question is has anyone else had this issue when their pro subscription ran out?And if i get another will i get the 800 odd pics back?

Thanks all,

Not liking flickr anymore :mad:

There is a simple solution.

The free account allows for only the latest 200 uploads to be visible on your site.

I have solved access by using tags that are relevant to my site and no other, for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/tags/photographedublin/

Normally, if "photographedublin" is replaced by "Dublin" you will find all the photos that are available, by me, out of the 200 currently visible that I have tagged "Dublin".

Then, if you hit the "see all public content tagged with button, you will see why I chose "photographedublin" as a personal seach facility, rather than "Dublin". All the photos tagged with either word appear, regardless of whether they are linked to a free or pro account.
In the case of "Dublin" it is difficult to pick out one's own photos from the crowd. With a personally identifiable tag, all the photos you have ever uploaded with that tag will be visible.

Hope this is clear. It means that I do not need to buy a pro account and can access my photos, even though the average viewer assumes I have only 200 uploaded.

The other reason I stick with the free system is that, welcome as comments are, I find it difficult to keep up to date with thanking people who have taken time to post on my photos. Having only 200 visible is quite enough at one time.

Ricky91t

Thanks Anouilh!
Just did a search for my rugby pics on yahoo and they're still on the first page!
So i can get them that way!:D
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Ronan+O%27Gara&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8

Cheers for the help everyone

rymus

Anouilh wrote: »

It means that I do not need to buy a pro account and can access my photos, even though the average viewer assumes I have only 200 uploaded.

Thereby negating the whole principle of 'photo sharing', if the average viewer cannot see photos you have uploaded (and marked as public). Bit pointless really. If you just wanted to store photos online, get a very large shared web hosting account and use it as storage. But then again, you might just like making your life overly complicated. Each to their own.

AnimalRights

Ouch!
Flickr def has some sneaky moves.
It reminds me of one of those corny Hollywood films about an IRA member who wants out of the organization but they won't let him.

rymus

flickr kneecaps non-pro users you say? Hmm.. interesting...

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Ouch!
Flickr def has some sneaky moves.
It reminds me of one of those corny Hollywood films about an IRA member who wants out of the organization but they won't let him.

Agreed!
I'd understand if it was for new users but the fact i'v been a pro and just havn't repayed,they already got my money for unlimited uploading and now they won't even let me see them

rymus wrote: »

flickr kneecaps non-pro users you say? Hmm.. interesting...

padocon

Ricky91t wrote: »

Agreed!
I'd understand if it was for new users but the fact i'v been a pro and just havn't repayed,they already got my money for unlimited uploading and now they won't even let me see them

I see where your coming from you did pay for it!
They have good sneaky marketing skills!

Covey

padocon wrote: »

I see where your coming from you did pay for it!
They have good sneaky marketing skills!

Whats sneaky about it. The rules are there when you sign up

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

Thereby negating the whole principle of 'photo sharing', if the average viewer cannot see photos you have uploaded (and marked as public). Bit pointless really. If you just wanted to store photos online, get a very large shared web hosting account and use it as storage. But then again, you might just like making your life overly complicated. Each to their own.

You make me sound like the Volpone of the Photo-Blogging World.

I have explained how to "share" my photos in the long post above.

My Photobucket site on Kiwirant is available to all and has none of the strictures associated with Flickr.

Also, I've plenty of photos uploaded here:

http://lounge.techfocus.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3

By keeping with the freeware version of Flickr I have simplified my life considerably and have no quibbles whatsoever with their system.

AnimalRights

Covey wrote: »

Whats sneaky about it. The rules are there when you sign up

Covey! most people never read rules or agreements!
Why people put them in!!

Ricky91t

Covey wrote: »

Whats sneaky about it. The rules are there when you sign up

Did they actually state that when you finish your pro subscription that will happen?

Calina

I believe they do.

rymus

they do indeed..

Ricky91t

Ah well that was ~2 years ago
:pac:

DaireQuinlan

In fairness, they could just delete everything on your account thats excess to the free account when you don't pay up. This way though they manage to avoid (too much) bad feeling, and then there's that big incentive to re-subscribe :-)

Ricky91t

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

elven

so, you're complaining that they *don't limit* the number of shots you can have up there on a free account???

Each to their own...

Anouilh

This may be the moment to re-introduce the concept of "free" as it is being debated by economists at the moment.

The editor of "Wired", Chris Anderson often uses Flick as the perfect example of what "free" means. When technology is so cheap, all it takes is a few people to contribute money for everybody else to be able to use the resources for "free".

The advantages of the professional Flickr account are numerous. Your photo size is not limited as in the free account. Statistical analyses of account behaviour, visits, etc.,... are a bonus there.

Really, it's simply that one gets what one pays for.
Those who opt for the "free" account simply get less.

DaireQuinlan

Ricky91t wrote: »

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

Well why don't you write them a stern e-mail to that effect ?
The above would probably make it less likely that people re-subscribe as pro users, which is very probably the reason they do what they do. IE my reading of the above is that you for one would be satisfied with that. Thats one subscriber down for them.

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

An interesting and, I have to admit, a very punitive idea.

I don't intend to be mis-treated just because I opt to be "free".

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

An interesting and, I have to admit, a very punitive idea.

I don't intend to be mis-treated just because I opt to be "free".

I don't think that ricky is suggesting that if you go free after having been a subscriber then your stream is deleted down to 200 pictures. Merely that if you go 'free' again everything stays the same but you lose the other subscription benefits. ie you're stuck with a monthly upload limit and you have no access to stats etc etc.

padocon

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I don't think that ricky is suggesting that if you go free after having been a subscriber then your stream is deleted down to 200 pictures. Merely that if you go 'free' again everything stays the same but you lose the other subscription benefits. ie you're stuck with a monthly upload limit and you have no access to stats etc etc.

Yes, they shouldn't block or not make your other images visible!

DaireQuinlan

padocon wrote: »

Yes, they shouldn't block or not make your other images visible!

Well why not ? You pay for a service. Why should they be obliged to continue to offer the service if you stop paying for it ? The only reason they offer this compromise is that they've weighed up the pro's and con's of various alternatives and established that this offers the best compromise in terms of goodwill versus getting people to pay their re-subscription fees.

Anouilh

We seem to be heading for Bag of

http://fiveprime.org/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_type=Tags&photo_number=100&photo_type=250&noform=t&quicksearch=1&sort=Interestingness&textinput=ferret+%2Cweasel

territory on this one.


I think the whole idea of payment, in the first place, is what is causing so much debate.

Many other upload sites are freeware, including the increasingly loveable Pix.ie.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

We seem to be heading for Bag of

http://fiveprime.org/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_type=Tags&photo_number=100&photo_type=250&noform=t&quicksearch=1&sort=Interestingness&textinput=ferret+%2Cweasel

territory on this one.


I think the whole idea of payment, in the first place, is what is causing so much debate.

Many other upload sites are freeware, including the increasingly loveable Pix.ie.

a bag of ferrets ??!?!?

And yes pix.ie is free, but ad-supported. Thats one of the things you pay a subscription fee to flickr to remove. And I have no doubt whatsoever that they have some plan to introduce some sort of subscription based service at some point. There's no point at the start simply because no one would see any value at all in paying it. If you cripple the free accounts then no one would bother signing up at all, and if the subscription and non-subscription accounts have the same functionality then there's no value to it.

Hugh_C

flickr costs about 5-and-a-quarter cent a day. I don't consider that very much.

AnimalRights

How much is your gas a day?
Electricity?
Rent/mortgage?
It's that extra 5and a half cent that may Buckaroo?

Covey

AnimalRights wrote: »

How much is your gas a day?
Electricity?
Rent/mortgage?
It's that extra 5and a half cent that may Buckaroo?

It's upgrading your camera body 4/5 times per annum that may Buckaroo

AnimalRights

I take it you do remember the Buckaroo ads Covey....

Ricky91t

Hugh_C wrote: »

flickr costs about 5-and-a-quarter cent a day. I don't consider that very much.

I'd happily pay it like that,
But as you have to pay it in one go,its not as nice!
Also when i upload i have to reduce the size as i have a slow upload
So i never really make the most of it being unlimited

XLR8

Ricky91t wrote: »

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

Are you suggesting that Flickr should allow you to upload 500 gig of photos on your pro account and then allow you to drop your pro account for a free account and retain access to 500 gig of photos?

I know storage is cheap but €20 isn't going to buy much HDD space and bandwidth... they need to make money somehow and this is how they do it.

I think Flickr are quite fair as regards free accounts and a pro account is excellent value for money.

Ricky91t

They make money from all the pro account users...
Think i'll just make the move to pixie now

Fajitas!

I'm sorry, we're talking about 25 quid being expensive, when we spend €€€€'s on camera gear?

Flickr is HUGE, it needs money to run it, as XLR mentioned, along with paying staff, and so on and so on. If someone came in here asking for professional photographer to work for free, they'd be lynched. A photographer runs a business and needs profits. Flickr is a business and needs profits.

If we're worrying about our gas, electricity and accomodation by the day, I think photography should be the last thing on our minds.

Ricky91t

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'm sorry, we're talking about 25 quid being expensive, when we spend €€€€'s on camera gear?

Flickr is HUGE, it needs money to run it, as XLR mentioned, along with paying staff, and so on and so on. If someone came in here asking for professional photographer to work for free, they'd be lynched. A photographer runs a business and needs profits. Flickr is a business and needs profits.

If we're worrying about our gas, electricity and accomodation by the day, I think photography should be the last thing on our minds.

Flickr is yahoo which is worth millions

When you're 17 have no job,can't get one,studying for the leaving cert so not enough time to get one,and trying to save for a news lens(which is failing)
€25 is alot,for me anyway

Anouilh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

a bag of ferrets ??!?!?.

Ferrets are, traditionally, a source of humour, Mustela nivalis less so...

I really don't think there's much of an issue in all this;
each user chooses the system of upload that best meets their needs.

The idea of "Freemium" might amuse readers here for a moment, and dividing by zero has always been a problem:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/24/free-wireds-chris-an.html

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

Flickr is yahoo which is worth millions

When you're 17 have no job,can't get one,studying for the leaving cert so not enough time to get one,and trying to save for a news lens(which is failing)
€25 is alot,for me anyway

You have a sound business sense, and prioritise well.

I overheard a conversation between some teenagers recently where what I might spend on a cup of tea and a muffin was "very expensive".

Been there...

padocon

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'm sorry, we're talking about 25 quid being expensive, when we spend €€€€'s on camera gear?

Flickr is HUGE, it needs money to run it, as XLR mentioned, along with paying staff, and so on and so on. If someone came in here asking for professional photographer to work for free, they'd be lynched. A photographer runs a business and needs profits. Flickr is a business and needs profits.

If we're worrying about our gas, electricity and accomodation by the day, I think photography should be the last thing on our minds.

How many members are on flickr?
Like 1 million in 2005 and its grown since then!
1,000,000 X 25 =25 million euro per annum!!!

Maybe they are not all Pros. But its a hell of allot of money!
I know they have to pay staff ect.

Ricky91t

There 33,512,794 users on flickr.I'd be surpised if 5% of those were pro

challengemaster

Look at the bigger picture:

Might help to remember, Flickr is owned by Yahoo, which is probably one of google's main competitors. So you're talking about a company on the same scale or slightly smaller than google.

It's not like flickr is its own entity which reaps all the profits.

Ricky91t

challengemaster wrote: »

Look at the bigger picture:

Might help to remember, Flickr is owned by Yahoo, which is probably one of google's main competitors. So you're talking about a company on the same scale or slightly smaller than google.

It's not like flickr is its own entity which reaps all the profits.

Already said flickr are owned by yahoo
I'm sure most people know about how well known yahoo is

Fajitas!

Ricky91t wrote: »

Flickr is yahoo which is worth millions

When you're 17 have no job,can't get one,studying for the leaving cert so not enough time to get one,and trying to save for a news lens(which is failing)
€25 is alot,for me anyway

Flickr is a business which needs profit.

If Flickr dosn't cut enough profit to keep itself going, and pay off to Yahoo, then it's a pointless enterprise.

In the 'grand scale' of things, 25 mil wouldn't be that huge, if you consider the terrabytes uploaded every minute!

melekalikimaka

Dear lies let's all chip in and get ricky a pro account and end this. Personally I have no problems paying for flickr, I pay for a great service and I find pix.ie rather tacky and I don't like directing people their to view images, and the group and other elements are excellent on flickr. Is there a batch up loader for pix.ie yet? Like flickr uploadr?

Ricky91t

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Dear lies let's all chip in and get ricky a pro account and end this. Personally I have no problems paying for flickr, I pay for a great service and I find pix.ie rather tacky and I don't like directing people their to view images, and the group and other elements are excellent on flickr. Is there a batch up loader for pix.ie yet? Like flickr uploadr?

I don't want that!
Cause i just see it pointless buying a flickr account for one day just to recover images,at no point in this thread did i ask for someone to buy one for me,nor did i try to hint at that,This thread was started as a rant that they deleted my photos and i was annoyed so there would be no point in "chipping in" I've already posted in the title saying this was resolved as i know they are still there

Therefore you shouldn't of posted on this and just let it go get lost in the archives

TJJP

Ricky91t wrote: »

I don't want that!
Cause i just see it pointless buying a flickr account for one day just to recover images,at no point in this thread did i ask for someone to buy one for me,nor did i try to hint at that,This thread was started as a rant that they deleted my photos and i was annoyed so there would be no point in "chipping in" I've already posted in the title saying this was resolved as i know they are still there

Good point about flickr though. I've tired of it and all the technical issues (flash and so on). Getting prints is a nuisance too. My account also expired in the last few weeks and getting images back was such a pain that I just deleted the whole lot... Where next though...

I have a pix.ie account but the interface is a bit tacky. Fuji has poor reviews, Aldi seems worse.

Snapfish looks interesting, as does putplace. Let me know if you find anything useful.

Fajitas!

Buy your own hosting?

Anouilh

While short-term problems are easy to solve in relation to photo uploading, this is a very time consuming problem for Internet users.

I stopped uploaded to Fotopic because it was so slow and long-winded. That was before I had Broadband, so I should give it another try.

It might be a useful site for you, Ricky.
The Webmasters there are really friendly and communicate very clearly through e-mail if you run into difficulties.
It was my first experience of photo upload and a lot of Irish people were using it about eight years ago, as it is based in England and seemed a bit more local.

I have never paid for any of my photo upload systems, as the few euro I save get put into filters and batteries.

Let's keep sharing?

Calina

Ricky91t wrote: »

I don't want that!
Cause i just see it pointless buying a flickr account for one day just to recover images....

I'm confused.

1) I have a flickr pro account which runs out some time in May. If I need the photos off it beforehand, I know roughly when to retrieve them before it would cost me money to do so.

2) I wouldn't need to do it anyway because every photograph I have uploaded flickr is, as far as I know, on one of my external drives.

Ricky, I realise that this is irritating for you but really the two main issues I see here are

1) you didn't plan ahead
2) you didn't read the T&Cs regarding what happened if you allowed a pro account to lapse.

In other words, rant away but to some extent, it is not Flickr's fault that you left your account lapse and that you now have to deal with the ramifications of it happening.

______________

Anouilh, I pay for Flickr services because I think they are worth it to me. It's a useful place for event-driven photographs, it's easily accessible to all and courtesy of the infrastructure behind them, their downtimes are very limited.

It's not difficult to use. You may save yourself something like 19E by not paying for the hosting and that's your prerogative. But you have no idea how much time I saved by not having to mess around using special tags to use the Yahoo search engine because there are limits on my account.

I like the pix.ie service but there are a couple of aspects of that service that I don't necessarily agree with at the moment, eg the inability to limit access to large size files and the adverts. When they go away I will cheerfully look at switching everything across from flickr but until then, the marriage of utility, usability and accessibility offered by flickr pro is the best match for my needs.

Anouilh

A very clear analysis of different aspects of Flickr.

There's no real debate in my mind. It's interesting to see that Flickr attracts so much discussion, but that, recently, has been based on the fact that part of the contract insists that photos uploaded there must not be used for commercial purposes. The ambiguity of this has exercised many photo-journalists over the past few years.

I expect the World will continue to be a place where everybody will make informed, personal decisions on what they spend their money on.