[Resolved]For all the Flickr pro users

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

they do indeed..

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 :-)

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...

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 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 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 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.

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