3 ms·

"In 2007, Flickr was the most popular dedicated photo-sharing site on the web, and growing exponentially in terms of new images uploaded." Uhm, as far as I rem

by neom 5y ago

"In 2007, Flickr was the most popular dedicated photo-sharing site on the web, and growing exponentially in terms of new images uploaded." Uhm, as far as I remember it, Flickr never surpassed daily actives or daily uploads over DeviantART, not by a long shot. I'm quite sure the photo gallery did considerably more volume than Flickr. Edit- shouldn't have used never: but in 2007 I don't believe that to be true.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
I find that hard to believe.
acdha 5y ago
I'd be quite surprised if that was true for the timeframe in question: the total number of images for 2015 were roughly the same as Flickr users had uploaded in a single year 8 years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeviantArt#cite_ref-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeviantArt#cite_ref-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#/media/File:How_many_public_photos_are_uploaded_to_Flickr_every_day,_month,_year?_(6855169886).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#/media/File:How_many_pu... One big confound arrived when Flickr started having automatic uploaders which meant that a lot of accounts had every photo someone took on their phone even if most of them never saw much activity. DeviantArt had deliberation in the upload path so I'd expect lower numbers but higher average quality.
- neom 5y ago
  I have no way of knowing for sure, but I was keeping a close eye on how we did in terms of web traffic at the time, especially when Flickr showed up on the scene, deviantART was in it's peak in 2005, we'd just released dAmn and started putting ajax on the website in a serious way, and release prints in 2006, I can't believe in 2007 Flickr was doing more volume than DeviantART, but it could be true, and I don't really have a way to know for sure, so for sure an anecdote. I know Chris the CTO at the time kicks around HN, maybe he'll chime in. I shouldn't have used never, I don't really know what happened after 2011+, but at least I'd be willing to challenge 2007, but only based on my memory. Edit: Probably another strike against my claim is they said dedicated photo share sites, and dA was an art community, I still suspect the photo gallery at the time was doing more than flickr combined, also, Flickr had it's fair share of Yiffy and Furries during that period.
simonw 5y ago
Citation needed on that. Flickr had absolutely explosive growth in the mid-to-late 2000s. DeviantART always struck me as a much more niche community.
- kaichanvong 5y ago
  If we have to compare "Flickr" versus "DeviantArt"... Flickr has the cooler name. It sounds almost old-school camera community, from a place doing mid-price range that you could afford. You know it does a job, posting your level of image in a photo. DeviantArt has the longer name! Sounds almost naughty, like it is away from any form of school. It has been a long-time since being online there for sharing my amateur level image of art (often computer-game based/almost fan-fiction). Both have communities.

by neom 5y ago

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

I find that hard to believe.

acdha 5y ago

I'd be quite surprised if that was true for the timeframe in question: the total number of images for 2015 were roughly the same as Flickr users had uploaded in a single year 8 years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeviantArt#cite_ref-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeviantArt#cite_ref-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#/media/File:How_many_public_photos_are_uploaded_to_Flickr_every_day,_month,_year?_(6855169886).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#/media/File:How_many_pu... One big confound arrived when Flickr started having automatic uploaders which meant that a lot of accounts had every photo someone took on their phone even if most of them never saw much activity. DeviantArt had deliberation in the upload path so I'd expect lower numbers but higher average quality.

neom 5y ago
I have no way of knowing for sure, but I was keeping a close eye on how we did in terms of web traffic at the time, especially when Flickr showed up on the scene, deviantART was in it's peak in 2005, we'd just released dAmn and started putting ajax on the website in a serious way, and release prints in 2006, I can't believe in 2007 Flickr was doing more volume than DeviantART, but it could be true, and I don't really have a way to know for sure, so for sure an anecdote. I know Chris the CTO at the time kicks around HN, maybe he'll chime in. I shouldn't have used never, I don't really know what happened after 2011+, but at least I'd be willing to challenge 2007, but only based on my memory. Edit: Probably another strike against my claim is they said dedicated photo share sites, and dA was an art community, I still suspect the photo gallery at the time was doing more than flickr combined, also, Flickr had it's fair share of Yiffy and Furries during that period.

simonw 5y ago

Citation needed on that. Flickr had absolutely explosive growth in the mid-to-late 2000s. DeviantART always struck me as a much more niche community.

kaichanvong 5y ago
If we have to compare "Flickr" versus "DeviantArt"... Flickr has the cooler name. It sounds almost old-school camera community, from a place doing mid-price range that you could afford. You know it does a job, posting your level of image in a photo. DeviantArt has the longer name! Sounds almost naughty, like it is away from any form of school. It has been a long-time since being online there for sharing my amateur level image of art (often computer-game based/almost fan-fiction). Both have communities.