Erik Moeller, 21/05/2013 19:40:
Here's one of many overviews of Flickr's redesign:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/121165-old-flickr-vs-new-flickr-what-s-new
Next time you feel that Wikimedia's community is particularly change averse, take a spin through the comments here. :-)
AFAICS, they also: 1) collapsed the button that allows you to set the license of an image of yours, which is now hidden below a "more" link in the metadata section that was moved outside the screen (or did this happen before? certainly after 2010) ; 2) removed any UI path to the advanced search and to the search for free/CC images, so that now you can find them only on the advanced search, by knowing its URL: http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/ ; 3) less importantly, hid under that mysterious triple-ball "ellipsis" button the option to find high resolution versions of the image, consistent with a similar regression in the interface of Google Plus compared to PicasaWeb. I found also some bugs, at least for Linux, which make (2) worse.
So, what's the future of CC on Flickr? http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ shows only 260M CC images: there were already 220M in 2011 if I read news correctly; only 60M are free. 75 % of the times I ask a user to put an image under cc-by-sa they choose -nc-nd because "it was the first option" (and some of course "what, isn't Wikipedia non-commercial?!). Is this the price to pay to Instagram, Tumblr and Facebook? Will the unusable&pretty-fication help bring more people to an environment where they may meet free knowledge, or will free knowledge just be sacrificed? It's unclear to me what's going on.
Nemo
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Erik Moeller, 21/05/2013 19:40:
Here's one of many overviews of Flickr's redesign:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/**news/121165-old-flickr-vs-new-** flickr-what-s-newhttp://www.pocket-lint.com/news/121165-old-flickr-vs-new-flickr-what-s-new
Next time you feel that Wikimedia's community is particularly change averse, take a spin through the comments here. :-)
http://www.flickr.com/help/**forum/en-us/72157633547442506/http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/
AFAICS, they also:
- collapsed the button that allows you to set the license of an image of
yours, which is now hidden below a "more" link in the metadata section that was moved outside the screen (or did this happen before? certainly after 2010) ; 2) removed any UI path to the advanced search and to the search for free/CC images, so that now you can find them only on the advanced search, by knowing its URL: http://www.flickr.com/search/**advanced/http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/; 3) less importantly, hid under that mysterious triple-ball "ellipsis" button the option to find high resolution versions of the image, consistent with a similar regression in the interface of Google Plus compared to PicasaWeb. I found also some bugs, at least for Linux, which make (2) worse.
So, what's the future of CC on Flickr? http://www.flickr.com/**creativecommons/http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/shows only 260M CC images: there were already 220M in 2011 if I read news correctly; only 60M are free. 75 % of the times I ask a user to put an image under cc-by-sa they choose -nc-nd because "it was the first option" (and some of course "what, isn't Wikipedia non-commercial?!). Is this the price to pay to Instagram, Tumblr and Facebook?
There are already lots of problems with Facebook (and various other social networks) and free licenses. See this analysis here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Face...
Will the unusable&pretty-fication help bring more people to an environment where they may meet free knowledge, or will free knowledge just be sacrificed? It's unclear to me what's going on.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Matthew Roth, 23/05/2013 17:31:
So, what's the future of CC on Flickr? http://www.flickr.com/__creativecommons/ <http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/> shows only 260M CC images: there were already 220M in 2011 if I read news correctly; only 60M are free. 75 % of the times I ask a user to put an image under cc-by-sa they choose -nc-nd because "it was the first option" (and some of course "what, isn't Wikipedia non-commercial?!). Is this the price to pay to Instagram, Tumblr and Facebook?There are already lots of problems with Facebook (and various other social networks) and free licenses. See this analysis here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Face...
Yes but there's a difference between that and forcing good sources of free knowledge like Flickr to drop this aspect, which Facebook never had. :) (If this is what's happening.) Ah, of course they also removed the option to have unlimited uploads: only current pro users can keep it, for the others there are only expensive storage plans.
Nemo
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Matthew Roth, 23/05/2013 17:31:
So, what's the future of CC on Flickr? http://www.flickr.com/__**creativecommons/<http://www.flickr.com/__creativecommons/> <http://www.flickr.com/**creativecommons/<http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/>>shows only 260M CC images: there were already 220M in 2011 if I read news correctly; only 60M are free. 75 % of the times I ask a user to put an image under cc-by-sa they choose -nc-nd because "it was the first option" (and some of course "what, isn't Wikipedia non-commercial?!). Is this the price to pay to Instagram, Tumblr and Facebook?
There are already lots of problems with Facebook (and various other social networks) and free licenses. See this analysis here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Legal_and_Community_** Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Facebookhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Facebook
Yes but there's a difference between that and forcing good sources of free knowledge like Flickr to drop this aspect
agreed :)
, which Facebook never had. :) (If this is what's happening.) Ah, of course they also removed the option to have unlimited uploads: only current pro users can keep it, for the others there are only expensive storage plans.
Nemo
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
- removed any UI path to the advanced search and to the search for
free/CC images, so that now you can find them only on the advanced search, by knowing its URL: http://www.flickr.com/search/**advanced/http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/;
That's not true. Advanced search is still available just below the search box, every time you make a search. Cf. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=dogs
They're probably doing this because they assume that you probably only need advanced search if you didn't find what you wanted on regular search. Seems like a pretty safe assumption from a UX perspetive. Obviously that doesn't account for the use case of Commons people hunting for photos, but that's hardly the majority of their users.
Steven Walling, 23/05/2013 19:48:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
2) removed any UI path to the advanced search and to the search for free/CC images, so that now you can find them only on the advanced search, by knowing its URL: http://www.flickr.com/search/__advanced/ <http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/> ;That's not true. Advanced search is still available just below the search box, every time you make a search. Cf. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=dogs
True. It wasn't there when I wrote my message (I found out reading some questions on flickr groups), it seems they also fixed some other bugs. I'm glad that wasn't a design decision.
They're probably doing this because they assume that you probably only need advanced search if you didn't find what you wanted on regular search. Seems like a pretty safe assumption from a UX perspetive. Obviously that doesn't account for the use case of Commons people hunting for photos, but that's hardly the majority of their users.
The flickr user I mentioned above was surely not a Wikimedia Commons user. :)
Nemo