Not so long ago we were discussing the relative merits, or lack of them, with regards to Flickr groups.
I said that I found them to be quite anti-social, in that few if any members actually 'talk' to each other, but just use it as a themed 'exhibition board', as opposed to a group in the true sense of the word.
A month ago, I launched a two part experiment on Flickr. Part 1 being the creation of new group, and Part 2 joining an existing group.
Part 1, was to test the water with regards to people joining a Flickr group with the idea of sharing their interest/enthusiasm in amateur photography, as opposed to just showing off their images.
The group description read:
"Not just another place to post your latest image, but a group for amateur photography enthusiasts, whether novice or experienced, to share their hobby with like-minded people. Discuss equipment, and techniques, both capture and image processing. Share images, and both give and receive friendly critique if required."
and was aimed at people in my part of East Anglia, where there is no shortage of people posting to Flickr groups.
To date, not a single person has joined the group, which is a good indication that people only see Flick groups as a exhibition board. I will shortly close the experimental group.
Part 2, was to test the social aspect of a Flickr group, and to study whose images receive comments, and or were favourited.
The lack of any any social atmosphere was quickly established, by introducing myself to the group in the discussion section. Here, as expected, the response was zero.
Next I looked at the people who received comments on their images, and commented on the images of others. It was quite apparent, that out of 600+ registered members, those receiving and making comments, were the same people most all of the time. In fact they appeared to be a part of a 'clique'.
What IMO, were in some cases average to poor images, receiving favourable comments from the 'clique' members, while other, again IMO, damn good images posted by non-clique members were ignored.
I should say that one or two of the 'clique' members are very good photographers, producing some very good shots, with the less good members 'sucking up to them'.
For me, the two experiments pretty much proved what I had long thought about Flickr groups, that they are simply an exhibition board, and a warehouse for storing images.
Thank goodness for this forum.
Dave
I said that I found them to be quite anti-social, in that few if any members actually 'talk' to each other, but just use it as a themed 'exhibition board', as opposed to a group in the true sense of the word.
A month ago, I launched a two part experiment on Flickr. Part 1 being the creation of new group, and Part 2 joining an existing group.
Part 1, was to test the water with regards to people joining a Flickr group with the idea of sharing their interest/enthusiasm in amateur photography, as opposed to just showing off their images.
The group description read:
"Not just another place to post your latest image, but a group for amateur photography enthusiasts, whether novice or experienced, to share their hobby with like-minded people. Discuss equipment, and techniques, both capture and image processing. Share images, and both give and receive friendly critique if required."
and was aimed at people in my part of East Anglia, where there is no shortage of people posting to Flickr groups.
To date, not a single person has joined the group, which is a good indication that people only see Flick groups as a exhibition board. I will shortly close the experimental group.
Part 2, was to test the social aspect of a Flickr group, and to study whose images receive comments, and or were favourited.
The lack of any any social atmosphere was quickly established, by introducing myself to the group in the discussion section. Here, as expected, the response was zero.
Next I looked at the people who received comments on their images, and commented on the images of others. It was quite apparent, that out of 600+ registered members, those receiving and making comments, were the same people most all of the time. In fact they appeared to be a part of a 'clique'.
What IMO, were in some cases average to poor images, receiving favourable comments from the 'clique' members, while other, again IMO, damn good images posted by non-clique members were ignored.
I should say that one or two of the 'clique' members are very good photographers, producing some very good shots, with the less good members 'sucking up to them'.
For me, the two experiments pretty much proved what I had long thought about Flickr groups, that they are simply an exhibition board, and a warehouse for storing images.
Thank goodness for this forum.
Dave
.
Comment