4 ms·

My expectation would be that the specific photos I tag Person A in are automatically visible to Person A. I think this is reasonable, and other concerns come up

by burke 15y ago

My expectation would be that the specific photos I tag Person A in are automatically visible to Person A. I think this is reasonable, and other concerns come up if a person is unable to see which photos they are tagged in. Making the entire album visible to Person A, I think, is not as reasonable.

ktsmith 15y ago
Why should Person A be able to see the photos they are tagged in if the photos have never been shared? If I have lots of albums on Picasa and I never share any of them but I tag everyone in them, that's pretty clearly for my benefit and not the benefit of the individuals in the photos. There's no harm to Person A by being tagged in my private album, nor is there really any benefit to Person A by having the photo automatically shared. I think it's reasonable to share a photo where Person A is tagged only if the photo has been shared. Tagging and sharing are separate actions as far as most people are concerned so there's not a good reason I can see for the UI performing both actions on a tag event.
- jahmed 15y ago
  Because its me. If you have a picture of me and want to link it to my profile information then I think it would be reasonable for me to know you have that picture. There is obvious benefit for me to have that picture shared with me and aware that it exists instead of it being hidden away in your private collection. Tagging is sharing. I see tagging as creating a link between the photo and my google+ profile. Maybe there should be a second option of labeling my name but not linking to my profile and thus keeping the label private, which is odd but seems more like what you want.
  - chc 15y ago
    Do you also think it would be reasonable if Google copied me on your Gmail conversations everytime you mentioned my first name or anything I've created? I don't see how they owe you anything for privately linking to your profile.
  - ktsmith 15y ago
    It's completely and utterly irrelevant that it's you. I took the picture, it's MY picture. I have thousands of physical pictures captured on 35mm film. I have names and dates written on them, should I have to give a copy of all of those pictures to the people that are in them simply because I put their name on the back? Should I have to give them a copy because I wrote their URL on the back? The additional meta data of the link to your profile is not ANY greater than a simple label so long as that picture is private.
    - jahmed 15y ago
      But it isn't irrelevant, I have a vested interest in the picture from the fact that I'm in the picture. Photos of me are extremely valuable to me and I would think most people have that opinion but maybe I'm wrong. This 'force sharing' leads to a Pareto improvement in both the google+ network and society. I honestly do not understand the situation where sharing a picture of me with me makes it less valuable for you. In the case of physical photos, no I dont think you need to give everyone a copy because that would take effort on your part. Sharing on google+ is costless.
sdizdar 15y ago
Actually, the album is very important too. The album as a whole makes a story and by tagging photos you can make up actors of that story. For example, what about if album is "actors of porn movie X" or something like (the title of album could be more innocent) and one of photos in that album has you tagged? Regarding sharing, why would you want to tag somebody with his/her public profile without even telling him/her that?
- protomyth 15y ago
  I went to see a live act on the night of my drunken party. I liked the singer's music and want to remember who they are later. I really don't think the singer needs to have access to my photo album from that night.
- ktsmith 15y ago
  The album is only relevant if you create your albums based on context. I don't take that many pictures any more and so most of my albums are based on dates. For example I have an album that contains all pictures from January 2011, there's about 15 pictures in it and they are from 3 different events. Having access to the album does't provide any additional benefit to the people in the pictures because only two or three of the other 14 pictures would be relevant to them in the first place.

by burke 15y ago

ktsmith 15y ago

Why should Person A be able to see the photos they are tagged in if the photos have never been shared? If I have lots of albums on Picasa and I never share any of them but I tag everyone in them, that's pretty clearly for my benefit and not the benefit of the individuals in the photos. There's no harm to Person A by being tagged in my private album, nor is there really any benefit to Person A by having the photo automatically shared. I think it's reasonable to share a photo where Person A is tagged only if the photo has been shared. Tagging and sharing are separate actions as far as most people are concerned so there's not a good reason I can see for the UI performing both actions on a tag event.

jahmed 15y ago
Because its me. If you have a picture of me and want to link it to my profile information then I think it would be reasonable for me to know you have that picture. There is obvious benefit for me to have that picture shared with me and aware that it exists instead of it being hidden away in your private collection. Tagging is sharing. I see tagging as creating a link between the photo and my google+ profile. Maybe there should be a second option of labeling my name but not linking to my profile and thus keeping the label private, which is odd but seems more like what you want.
- chc 15y ago
  Do you also think it would be reasonable if Google copied me on your Gmail conversations everytime you mentioned my first name or anything I've created? I don't see how they owe you anything for privately linking to your profile.
- ktsmith 15y ago
  It's completely and utterly irrelevant that it's you. I took the picture, it's MY picture. I have thousands of physical pictures captured on 35mm film. I have names and dates written on them, should I have to give a copy of all of those pictures to the people that are in them simply because I put their name on the back? Should I have to give them a copy because I wrote their URL on the back? The additional meta data of the link to your profile is not ANY greater than a simple label so long as that picture is private.
  - jahmed 15y ago
    But it isn't irrelevant, I have a vested interest in the picture from the fact that I'm in the picture. Photos of me are extremely valuable to me and I would think most people have that opinion but maybe I'm wrong. This 'force sharing' leads to a Pareto improvement in both the google+ network and society. I honestly do not understand the situation where sharing a picture of me with me makes it less valuable for you. In the case of physical photos, no I dont think you need to give everyone a copy because that would take effort on your part. Sharing on google+ is costless.

sdizdar 15y ago

Actually, the album is very important too. The album as a whole makes a story and by tagging photos you can make up actors of that story. For example, what about if album is "actors of porn movie X" or something like (the title of album could be more innocent) and one of photos in that album has you tagged? Regarding sharing, why would you want to tag somebody with his/her public profile without even telling him/her that?

protomyth 15y ago
I went to see a live act on the night of my drunken party. I liked the singer's music and want to remember who they are later. I really don't think the singer needs to have access to my photo album from that night.
ktsmith 15y ago
The album is only relevant if you create your albums based on context. I don't take that many pictures any more and so most of my albums are based on dates. For example I have an album that contains all pictures from January 2011, there's about 15 pictures in it and they are from 3 different events. Having access to the album does't provide any additional benefit to the people in the pictures because only two or three of the other 14 pictures would be relevant to them in the first place.