3 ms·
I can see the value of a print. But the amazingness of Google's Photo service is the search. My wife and I reminisce and say something like "remember that tim
by aantix 6y ago
I can see the value of a print.
But the amazingness of Google's Photo service is the search.
My wife and I reminisce and say something like "remember that time we went to a Yankees/Red Sox baseball game - so much fun". I search for "Yankees baseball", and boom, there's the photo of my wife, at the stadium, from 2012.
I can't replicate that functionality.
- brudgers 6y agoPrints are push rememberance. Google’s pull model costs that. Indeed that’s pretty much true of digital artifacts. They don’t have presence. They can’t come unbidden. A bored dinner guest won’t strike up a conversation. A child cannot ask about it because the it isn’t there. It’s barely even an it.
- frosted-flakes 6y agoIt's probably just me, but I've never found Google Photo's search functionality to be very useful, and can usually find a particular photo in less than ten seconds manually. This is because I have a really good sense of when something happened, so I can usually scroll to the year and month and it's right there. Also, I ruthlessly prune my photo collection, because once I clear out all the cruft that I don't care about (photos that are blurry, near duplicate, no longer relevant, etc), I have half as many photos to look through. I only keep 500-1000 photos per year, one folder per year, as well as a synced Camera Roll folder with not-yet-processed photos. Not only does this make browsing through my photo collection a much more enjoyable experience, it doesn't take up much space. I have my entire photo collection (11000 photos from the last 12 years) stored locally on my phone in full resolution, as well as backed up in various other locations.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]