I wasn’t aware that Flickr had such issues and you are correct in that they should fix existing bugs before heaping on new products.

Since Ipernity offers the ability to blog as well, do you think you might consider moving all your various sites, with their differing emphasis, to this one location?

I don’t really like video clips very much… in terms of watching them that is, nor do I very often have the patience to wait whilst they load. Maybe if the technology was improved somewhat it may be different, but as things stand at the moment I’m perfectly happy without them.

Which feeds into another potential issue. As Flickr has promoted it, clips will appear in a person’s photostram right alongside pics and the default setting (which admittedly can be changed by the account holder, but how many will I wonder?) is for them to start playing on page load.
So if someone’s photostream contains a 50/50 mix of pics and clips, how will that impact page load time? And page loading is precisely one of the areas where Flickr’s been buggy.

However, I don’t think its so much my bloody-mindedness (see last but one comment) that’s driving what may have appeared to become an issue with me.
Its not really any more of an issue than it was to start with (which I think I sort of clarified in my very first post on the topic). Its much more the fact that a quest for a possible alternative, just in case, stimulated my ever-present but low-level glee at playing around with different sites.

Reason I joined (and subsequently pay for) Flickr is cos its always promoted itself as a photo-sharing site.

In the same way that the reason I joined YouTube is cos its a video-sharing site.

Had Flickr made some attempt to separate the two so that one could sort of “opt out” (as the one I’m trialling now, Ipernity, has done) maybe I wouldn’t feel so peeved about it.
Similarly, had they managed to successfully iron out the various bugs that occur with Flickr before introducing such a dramatic new feature I might not feel so peeved.

And finally, its serendipity, sort of. Comes too soon after the news that all Flickr users may suddenly find themselves in the maw of Microsoft, about which I’m none too pleased anyway.

Ultimately what all this resolves into is sheer bloody-mindedness on my part!

I understand Flickr has added a feature that you don’t feel a need for, but I would imagine someone has asked them about doing such, otherwise why would they have added this feature? And while they didn’t ask you or give you a choice to opt out of such a feature, are they forcing you to utilize it or does it otherwise interfere with the usage of Flickr for photographs?

I personally don’t know what effect this additional service has upon the site as I haven’t used Flickr (as you know).

You know me well enough to know that I’ll look at your pictures wherever you post them (and because of your research you’ve saved me the issue of determining where I might want to go for picture posting/sharing), but I have found your resistance to this change at Flickr a bit perplexing.

Then again, I’m crazy.

Posting to blog from Ipernity

Yeah, looks like you’re right. There’s a “publish to blog” option but that seems to refer only to the “in house” one.
However, my tongue-in-cheek “copy & paste” suggestion was only half-jest, as most of the time that’s exactly what I do when blogging stuff from Flickr to here.
Grab the html link for the photo then come here and paste it into a new post.
Reasons I do this are twofold… a) I don’t much care for the “originally uploaded by…” and filename link that’s included when using the Flickr feature (after all, most of the pics I blog here are my own anyway) and b) very often I’ll want to include more than one pic in a blogpost so I have to grab and paste the codes for those anyhow.

And if I cross-post any stuff from the Ipernity blog to here that’s almost certainly the sort of way I’ll do it (and vice versa of course).

Means having to log in here of course, but hey, that’s no big deal cos at the same time I can also check out what’s been happening here.

Notice that even on the Pro (top level) account (which hasn’t even been fully implemented yet) there’s a max storage limit of 12Gb whereas a number of photo-sharing sites offer unlimited storage with pro accounts. This may not be an issue if one only uploads compressed/reduced size pics, but anything else could soon eat that up.
Also, the annual subscription’s quite high compared to some other sites.

LifeSpy: Copy & paste!? Dunno, but I’m still checking out all the features. Let you know if I find a nifty way of doing it.