nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

[Resolved]For all the Flickr pro users

Ricky91t

Hello all,
My flickr pro subscription recently ran out over christmas and i havn't got round to upgrading it(Probably won't)Might just move to pixie

But while i was on holiday i uploaded about 300 full res photo and set them to hidden and they're gone!Along with all but 200 of my most recent

My question is has anyone else had this issue when their pro subscription ran out?And if i get another will i get the 800 odd pics back?

Thanks all,

Not liking flickr anymore :mad:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fajitas!

They're all still there, but you'll have to resubscribe to get them back.

trishw78

I have a free account. Some of my photos aren't showing up. Why?

On a free account, Flickr limits the number of photos displayed.

If you have fewer than 200 photos, we display them all. If you have more than 200 photos, only the most recent 200 are displayed.

Your photos are not removed from Flickr, only from the list of your photos. If you blogged a photo and it no longer appears in your list, it will still appear on your blog, and the photo's Flickr page will still work just fine.

If some of your photos aren't showing up, don't panic! Just upload some fresh ones. Or upgrade to a Pro Account.

Note: If your free account is inactive for 90 consecutive days, it will be deleted.

From the FAQ page

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

Hello all,
My flickr pro subscription recently ran out over christmas and i havn't got round to upgrading it(Probably won't)Might just move to pixie

But while i was on holiday i uploaded about 300 full res photo and set them to hidden and they're gone!Along with all but 200 of my most recent

My question is has anyone else had this issue when their pro subscription ran out?And if i get another will i get the 800 odd pics back?

Thanks all,

Not liking flickr anymore :mad:

There is a simple solution.

The free account allows for only the latest 200 uploads to be visible on your site.

I have solved access by using tags that are relevant to my site and no other, for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/tags/photographedublin/

Normally, if "photographedublin" is replaced by "Dublin" you will find all the photos that are available, by me, out of the 200 currently visible that I have tagged "Dublin".

Then, if you hit the "see all public content tagged with button, you will see why I chose "photographedublin" as a personal seach facility, rather than "Dublin". All the photos tagged with either word appear, regardless of whether they are linked to a free or pro account.
In the case of "Dublin" it is difficult to pick out one's own photos from the crowd. With a personally identifiable tag, all the photos you have ever uploaded with that tag will be visible.

Hope this is clear. It means that I do not need to buy a pro account and can access my photos, even though the average viewer assumes I have only 200 uploaded.

The other reason I stick with the free system is that, welcome as comments are, I find it difficult to keep up to date with thanking people who have taken time to post on my photos. Having only 200 visible is quite enough at one time.

Ricky91t

Thanks Anouilh!
Just did a search for my rugby pics on yahoo and they're still on the first page!
So i can get them that way!:D
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Ronan+O%27Gara&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8

Cheers for the help everyone

rymus

Anouilh wrote: »

It means that I do not need to buy a pro account and can access my photos, even though the average viewer assumes I have only 200 uploaded.

Thereby negating the whole principle of 'photo sharing', if the average viewer cannot see photos you have uploaded (and marked as public). Bit pointless really. If you just wanted to store photos online, get a very large shared web hosting account and use it as storage. But then again, you might just like making your life overly complicated. Each to their own.

AnimalRights

Ouch!
Flickr def has some sneaky moves.
It reminds me of one of those corny Hollywood films about an IRA member who wants out of the organization but they won't let him.

rymus

flickr kneecaps non-pro users you say? Hmm.. interesting...

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Ouch!
Flickr def has some sneaky moves.
It reminds me of one of those corny Hollywood films about an IRA member who wants out of the organization but they won't let him.

Agreed!
I'd understand if it was for new users but the fact i'v been a pro and just havn't repayed,they already got my money for unlimited uploading and now they won't even let me see them

rymus wrote: »

flickr kneecaps non-pro users you say? Hmm.. interesting...

padocon

Ricky91t wrote: »

Agreed!
I'd understand if it was for new users but the fact i'v been a pro and just havn't repayed,they already got my money for unlimited uploading and now they won't even let me see them

I see where your coming from you did pay for it!
They have good sneaky marketing skills!

Covey

padocon wrote: »

I see where your coming from you did pay for it!
They have good sneaky marketing skills!

Whats sneaky about it. The rules are there when you sign up

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

Thereby negating the whole principle of 'photo sharing', if the average viewer cannot see photos you have uploaded (and marked as public). Bit pointless really. If you just wanted to store photos online, get a very large shared web hosting account and use it as storage. But then again, you might just like making your life overly complicated. Each to their own.

You make me sound like the Volpone of the Photo-Blogging World.

I have explained how to "share" my photos in the long post above.

My Photobucket site on Kiwirant is available to all and has none of the strictures associated with Flickr.

Also, I've plenty of photos uploaded here:

http://lounge.techfocus.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3

By keeping with the freeware version of Flickr I have simplified my life considerably and have no quibbles whatsoever with their system.

AnimalRights

Covey wrote: »

Whats sneaky about it. The rules are there when you sign up

Covey! most people never read rules or agreements!
Why people put them in!!

Ricky91t

Covey wrote: »

Whats sneaky about it. The rules are there when you sign up

Did they actually state that when you finish your pro subscription that will happen?

Calina

I believe they do.

rymus

they do indeed..

Ricky91t

Ah well that was ~2 years ago
:pac:

DaireQuinlan

In fairness, they could just delete everything on your account thats excess to the free account when you don't pay up. This way though they manage to avoid (too much) bad feeling, and then there's that big incentive to re-subscribe :-)

Ricky91t

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

elven

so, you're complaining that they *don't limit* the number of shots you can have up there on a free account???

Each to their own...

Anouilh

This may be the moment to re-introduce the concept of "free" as it is being debated by economists at the moment.

The editor of "Wired", Chris Anderson often uses Flick as the perfect example of what "free" means. When technology is so cheap, all it takes is a few people to contribute money for everybody else to be able to use the resources for "free".

The advantages of the professional Flickr account are numerous. Your photo size is not limited as in the free account. Statistical analyses of account behaviour, visits, etc.,... are a bonus there.

Really, it's simply that one gets what one pays for.
Those who opt for the "free" account simply get less.

DaireQuinlan

Ricky91t wrote: »

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

Well why don't you write them a stern e-mail to that effect ?
The above would probably make it less likely that people re-subscribe as pro users, which is very probably the reason they do what they do. IE my reading of the above is that you for one would be satisfied with that. Thats one subscriber down for them.

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

They should just limit free users to 200!Pro users whether or not they re-subscribe should have an unlimited photo number in their stream(but still bandwidth/upload limit)

An interesting and, I have to admit, a very punitive idea.

I don't intend to be mis-treated just because I opt to be "free".

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

An interesting and, I have to admit, a very punitive idea.

I don't intend to be mis-treated just because I opt to be "free".

I don't think that ricky is suggesting that if you go free after having been a subscriber then your stream is deleted down to 200 pictures. Merely that if you go 'free' again everything stays the same but you lose the other subscription benefits. ie you're stuck with a monthly upload limit and you have no access to stats etc etc.

padocon

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I don't think that ricky is suggesting that if you go free after having been a subscriber then your stream is deleted down to 200 pictures. Merely that if you go 'free' again everything stays the same but you lose the other subscription benefits. ie you're stuck with a monthly upload limit and you have no access to stats etc etc.

Yes, they shouldn't block or not make your other images visible!

DaireQuinlan

padocon wrote: »

Yes, they shouldn't block or not make your other images visible!

Well why not ? You pay for a service. Why should they be obliged to continue to offer the service if you stop paying for it ? The only reason they offer this compromise is that they've weighed up the pro's and con's of various alternatives and established that this offers the best compromise in terms of goodwill versus getting people to pay their re-subscription fees.

Anouilh

We seem to be heading for Bag of

http://fiveprime.org/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_type=Tags&photo_number=100&photo_type=250&noform=t&quicksearch=1&sort=Interestingness&textinput=ferret+%2Cweasel

territory on this one.

I think the whole idea of payment, in the first place, is what is causing so much debate.

Many other upload sites are freeware, including the increasingly loveable Pix.ie.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

We seem to be heading for Bag of

http://fiveprime.org/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_type=Tags&photo_number=100&photo_type=250&noform=t&quicksearch=1&sort=Interestingness&textinput=ferret+%2Cweasel

territory on this one.

I think the whole idea of payment, in the first place, is what is causing so much debate.

Many other upload sites are freeware, including the increasingly loveable Pix.ie.

a bag of ferrets ??!?!?

And yes pix.ie is free, but ad-supported. Thats one of the things you pay a subscription fee to flickr to remove. And I have no doubt whatsoever that they have some plan to introduce some sort of subscription based service at some point. There's no point at the start simply because no one would see any value at all in paying it. If you cripple the free accounts then no one would bother signing up at all, and if the subscription and non-subscription accounts have the same functionality then there's no value to it.

Hugh_C

flickr costs about 5-and-a-quarter cent a day. I don't consider that very much.

AnimalRights

How much is your gas a day?
Electricity?
Rent/mortgage?
It's that extra 5and a half cent that may Buckaroo?

Covey

AnimalRights wrote: »

How much is your gas a day?
Electricity?
Rent/mortgage?
It's that extra 5and a half cent that may Buckaroo?

It's upgrading your camera body 4/5 times per annum that may Buckaroo