I thought Flickr premium accounts were so that YOU didn't see ads when logged in, not so people viewing your pics didn't see ads. Did they change that somewhere along the lines?
IIUC I think anonymous / not logged in people will always see ads on your pics regardless of your account status.
Anecdotally, I think it is the case that if you're a Pro user, and someone else is viewing your photostream, then they won't see ads next to your photo. This probably doesn't apply to your photos in other groups, etc. So we both may be right.
The default privacy permissions are a bit loose for my taste, but I'm not big into sharing photos except with my direct family.
Can anybody compare them with facebook's or picasa / google+'s default privacy settings ?
Edit: I've made a bunch of comments as replies to this one. My conclusion is that New Flickr's privacy-friendliness is just barely above Facebook's.
However, they haven't yet demonstrated _continuing_ willingness (as Facebook has) to default to lower-privacy options as they iterate.
If they notice that I've locked down most of my privacy / sharing settings and then take an educated guess at what I want the default to be when they launch a new feature with a privacy slider ("we've set this to 'only family' for you based off your choices for settings X, Y, and Z."), that would be sweet.
Of course, the counterpoint: Flickr's been doing this for as long as they've had the ability to tag people in photos. If you've got a photo whose privacy setting wouldn't allow the person to see it, though, they do pop up a notice saying that tagging someone gives them access to it.
Flickr has reasonably fine-grained privacy controls. There are a lot of people who do post the occasional NSFW picture right in with their regular photostream.
You can mark it private to yourself only, or family, or contacts, and anyone not in those groups will never see it. You can and should also mark it as having a different "safety" level - by default people browse Flickr in a "safe" mode, unless they change their account settings. Such people, even if you've authorized them, will be prompted to click through. This is my favorite setting, as a clicked-through image has an emergency kitten escape button.
Finally there are "passes" for certain photos that can override any other security setting. So it could be private to you, but you can give someone a pass (a special URL) to see it. You can revoke the passes later if you want.
So if you are encouraging people to put there private photos which they want to share, and it seems like your website is claiming some privacy, shouldn't you address that somewhere on the site? Yeah, but first, make it clear that is what will happen. Because honestly, there is no way a non technical person will infer this model from the site.
This sucks. I used this all the time. Does anyone know a similar, anonymous service? I want private sharing links and I don't want a username displayed on the gallery page like Google Photos.
This sucks. I used this all the time. Does anyone know a similar, anonymous service? I want private sharing links and I don't want a username displayed on the gallery page like Google Photos.
I'm on flickr and the semi-regular emails over the past few years telling me that I have private photos which will get deleted soon, would be my reason.
The problem is the copyrights: try for yourself to host under your own name all the pictures seen there. The anonymity allows one to present more content than a non-anonymous "normal" user would be able to use.
Because it allows attackers to look for accounts. It's part of your privacy that I shouldn't be able to see if you have an account with sexycatpictures.com
IIUC I think anonymous / not logged in people will always see ads on your pics regardless of your account status.
reply