http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...-is-it-social/
So, in brief, this is an article in which the author bemoans the lack of social aspects to Flickr. Let me address the specifics.
Seems to me that here he's moaning because the website won't tell him which artists he likes. How's this for an idea - browse through someone's photostream, and if you like their pictures, then add them as a contact. If you don't, don't. Why would you care how many other people agree with you? Have an opinion of your own.
Besides which, wouldn't a system whereby people add people who already have a lot of contacts just create a situation where old, established members keep racking up contacts and newer members never get their stuff seen by anybody?
And now he's complaining that it's not easy to brag about how many contacts you've got. Seems rather childish, and I'm very happy that Flickr doesn't have one of the things that I hate about sites like Facebook - pointless competition over how many "friends" you have.
...and he complains that it's not a game.
Well, good. It's supposed to be a site for sharing pictures, not a popularity contest. And, seriously, who thinks popularity contests are a good idea anyway?
What's more, the article is comparing Flickr to Facebook. Yet, Flickr isn't Facebook. It's perfectly possible to be social on Flickr. If you like something about a particular photo, you can leave a comment. You can also contact the artist directly.
Furthermore, there are many thousands of different groups you can join - if you can think of it, there's a group for it. A group for pictures that have stripes on them? That exists. A group for pictures of ice cream vans? That exists. A group for pictures with bright colours? That exists. A group for pictures of water droplets? That exists. A group for beautiful women walking dogs? That exists. And each and every group has its own discussion board. There's a million and one ways to find and talk to people who share your tastes in art.
And that's not to mention that you can link your account with Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and a million other social sites. So you can do all that stuff, too.
Sorry if I've gone off on one here, but it just seems incredibly stupid for someone to moan that Flickr isn't a carbon copy of other websites, and especially that it doesn't tell him what his taste in art should be. Whatever happened to having an opinion of your own?
So, in brief, this is an article in which the author bemoans the lack of social aspects to Flickr. Let me address the specifics.
Quote:
First, for people browsing a social Web site like Flickr, a follower count can be a quick signal to help someone understand if a person is worth following. It’s almost a quantified look at the so-called wisdom of crowds. |
Seems to me that here he's moaning because the website won't tell him which artists he likes. How's this for an idea - browse through someone's photostream, and if you like their pictures, then add them as a contact. If you don't, don't. Why would you care how many other people agree with you? Have an opinion of your own.
Besides which, wouldn't a system whereby people add people who already have a lot of contacts just create a situation where old, established members keep racking up contacts and newer members never get their stuff seen by anybody?
Quote:
There is, of course, the ego aspect of displaying such a number. A simple search on Twitter for ““more followers than”” shows tens of thousands of friends publicly prodding each other as they race to gain a larger following on the site. |
And now he's complaining that it's not easy to brag about how many contacts you've got. Seems rather childish, and I'm very happy that Flickr doesn't have one of the things that I hate about sites like Facebook - pointless competition over how many "friends" you have.
Quote:
These numeric signals are more than just ego, they help create both a game dynamic and a reward system on these social sites — one that still seems to be missing from Flickr. |
...and he complains that it's not a game.
Well, good. It's supposed to be a site for sharing pictures, not a popularity contest. And, seriously, who thinks popularity contests are a good idea anyway?
What's more, the article is comparing Flickr to Facebook. Yet, Flickr isn't Facebook. It's perfectly possible to be social on Flickr. If you like something about a particular photo, you can leave a comment. You can also contact the artist directly.
Furthermore, there are many thousands of different groups you can join - if you can think of it, there's a group for it. A group for pictures that have stripes on them? That exists. A group for pictures of ice cream vans? That exists. A group for pictures with bright colours? That exists. A group for pictures of water droplets? That exists. A group for beautiful women walking dogs? That exists. And each and every group has its own discussion board. There's a million and one ways to find and talk to people who share your tastes in art.
And that's not to mention that you can link your account with Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and a million other social sites. So you can do all that stuff, too.
Sorry if I've gone off on one here, but it just seems incredibly stupid for someone to moan that Flickr isn't a carbon copy of other websites, and especially that it doesn't tell him what his taste in art should be. Whatever happened to having an opinion of your own?
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=266364&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire