5 ms·

It used to be well organised grid-ordered thumbnails (regularly displayed even when from different aspect ratios) on a white background that made picture stand

by wott 5y ago

It used to be well organised grid-ordered thumbnails (regularly displayed even when from different aspect ratios) on a white background that made picture stand out, with titles and descriptions as first citizens. Ipernity (http://www.ipernity.com/explore/whatshot http://www.ipernity.com/explore/whatshot) kept more or less that appearance, if you want to see). Then in 2012 or 2013, they 'modernised' it into the current one: glued pictures with almost no separation and 100% screen occupation making an irregular patchwork; no title/description if you don't hover, I guess to accommodate a growing number of people who dumped their memory card without captioning their photos, and often without sorting them.

jcrawfordor 5y ago
I think this gets at an insightful issue - In Flickr's heyday, much of its userbase was professional, aspiring, and amateur photographers who were effectively power users. They viewed Flickr as something like an extension of Lightroom, so they used it for storage but also curated their public profile, lists, etc in a sort of proto-Instagram way. When Flickr repositioned post Yahoo acquisition, it felt like it was aiming for more of a Google Photos-type use-case that was very passive and "it just works", which felt very different from how it had been popular before. I think history bears out that this was a poor decision, we don't really have major players now that glue those styles of usage together like Flickr did. I think it just required a higher level of effort in both the software and the users, and once Flickr pushed away the audience that enjoyed that level of effort to try to acquire a more set-and-forget audience it lost the first and failed to appeal much to the second. I think the old core Flickr userbase often went to 500px, which I don't like as much but is closer to Flickr in the good old days.
- forgotpwd16 5y ago
  >500px, which I don't like as much but is closer to Flickr in the good old days Hmm... Checking the 500px's homepage and profiles it has the 'modernised' points that wott mentions.
  - jcrawfordor 5y ago
    I was actually surprised looking at it myself, I've never been a 500px user but have been linked to it before. It seems like they did a pretty big redesign in the last couple of years and... now push NFTs. Swell.
KineticLensman 5y ago
Yes. They also introduced infinite scrolling which meant that you could no longer jump to see the early part (or first photo) of a photostream (your own or anyone else's) That and the attempt to introduce social media aspects: you got notifications that said 'here are some people you might know'. Which I never did. If they said 'here are some photographers whose work you might like' it would have been closer to the original intent. Lots of annoyances like these drove me away from the site, and I never went back (or renewed my pro membership). Over time, they gradually undid the worst changes, but it was too late by then. One thing that I did take away, though, was my Flickr username [0], which got repurposed for HN :-) [0] https://flickr.com/photos/kinetic-lensman/ https://flickr.com/photos/kinetic-lensman/
forgotpwd16 5y ago
Truthfully, as a user, I like the patchwork approach, or maybe have gotten used to it due to others sites using a similar design (DeviantArt, 500px). Without text and border I find pictures stand out more. But they could've kept the old one as an option. Also having an option for always active title/description in the new one would've been nice.
- yesimahuman 5y ago
  Agreed. I love the new design as a very active Flickr user and Pro customer.

by wott 5y ago

jcrawfordor 5y ago

I think this gets at an insightful issue - In Flickr's heyday, much of its userbase was professional, aspiring, and amateur photographers who were effectively power users. They viewed Flickr as something like an extension of Lightroom, so they used it for storage but also curated their public profile, lists, etc in a sort of proto-Instagram way. When Flickr repositioned post Yahoo acquisition, it felt like it was aiming for more of a Google Photos-type use-case that was very passive and "it just works", which felt very different from how it had been popular before. I think history bears out that this was a poor decision, we don't really have major players now that glue those styles of usage together like Flickr did. I think it just required a higher level of effort in both the software and the users, and once Flickr pushed away the audience that enjoyed that level of effort to try to acquire a more set-and-forget audience it lost the first and failed to appeal much to the second. I think the old core Flickr userbase often went to 500px, which I don't like as much but is closer to Flickr in the good old days.

forgotpwd16 5y ago
>500px, which I don't like as much but is closer to Flickr in the good old days Hmm... Checking the 500px's homepage and profiles it has the 'modernised' points that wott mentions.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  I was actually surprised looking at it myself, I've never been a 500px user but have been linked to it before. It seems like they did a pretty big redesign in the last couple of years and... now push NFTs. Swell.

KineticLensman 5y ago

Yes. They also introduced infinite scrolling which meant that you could no longer jump to see the early part (or first photo) of a photostream (your own or anyone else's) That and the attempt to introduce social media aspects: you got notifications that said 'here are some people you might know'. Which I never did. If they said 'here are some photographers whose work you might like' it would have been closer to the original intent. Lots of annoyances like these drove me away from the site, and I never went back (or renewed my pro membership). Over time, they gradually undid the worst changes, but it was too late by then. One thing that I did take away, though, was my Flickr username [0], which got repurposed for HN :-) [0] https://flickr.com/photos/kinetic-lensman/ https://flickr.com/photos/kinetic-lensman/

forgotpwd16 5y ago

Truthfully, as a user, I like the patchwork approach, or maybe have gotten used to it due to others sites using a similar design (DeviantArt, 500px). Without text and border I find pictures stand out more. But they could've kept the old one as an option. Also having an option for always active title/description in the new one would've been nice.

yesimahuman 5y ago
Agreed. I love the new design as a very active Flickr user and Pro customer.