Love and hate? How do you feel about Flickr and other pro photographer sites?

<p>So Bill, have you ever thought your SEO strategy through on how what you write on your blog whether keywords or straight blog entries will get the most eyeballs?</p>

<p>Do you find you have to pick your words carefully when writing so your blog gets bumped up a few pages closer to the first on a google search? What words do you focus on that you think an internet audience will use in a search? And can you gauge and connect the hits to your site going by particular subjects covered on your blog?</p>

<p>I'm trying to figure out how "VirtualTourist" gets placed so high on google searches using words associated with my town. Is it about money? Are they paying for these high SEO results?</p>

<p>Those are good questions Tim, but unfortunately my blog site at livejournal.com doesn't provide the statistical information to provide an answer.<br>

But I also have a pro account at flickr, and flickr provides the user with statistics that enable one to do a bit of analysis of these questions.<br>

I discovered that if a user does a goggle image search on the phrase "bge flagger jobs" , then 8 of the top 13 images in the search results returned are by me, and that all of my images returned in these search results are hosted at my flickr account.<br>

So what was the secret of my success here?<br>

I think that two factors were: the high ranking given to flickr in search results, and the uniqueness of the subject that my images pertained to. <br>

The key term that ensured my success was "bge", which is an acronym for Baltimore Gas and Electric. If the user had searched for just "flagger jobs" then none of my images would have been featured. So photos that pertain to particular occupation associated with a particular company rank high in search results, assuming that is what the user is looking for. <br>

Hope that helps somewhat...</p>

 

<p>I believe this discussion was about the pros and cons of Flickr. So, let me first state that Flickr and Photo.net are very different in focus and structure. There are not competitors for that reason. </p>

<p>Flickr is quite decentralized with considerable individual autonomy. Each member is in full control of his or her Flickr site and can make changes at will without going to a higher authority. One can also makes changes in one's postings to other Flickr sites. This autonomy is one thing that I like about Flickr. There are group moderators, of course, who can ban you and do so at times without apparent reason. But there is an endless supply of groups and eventually you find more than you need that you are comfortable with.</p>

<p>There are the big moderators out there somewhere but they only intervene if there are problems of propriety--which need to be very serious.<br>

Flickr feels as infinite as the universe. There are people of all sorts, from absolute beginners to professionals. And yes, there are professional photographers on Flickr--I mean working photographers--a fair number of whom are my contacts. Likewise, there are Flickr groups of all sorts. Groups are easy to start if you have the will.</p>

<p>What photo.net has and Flickr has little of is concentrated discussion. For useful technical information, philosophical discussions, debate, in depth photo critiques I rely on photo.net, not Flickr. <br>

On Flickr people give each other awards rather than long critiques. I admit that this is fun and great shorthand. You can always ask someone for a critique, of course. </p>

<p>Flickr people tend to be mutually supportive and polite. There are few problems with disrupters. The reason for that that you as the controller of your Flickr site can delete and ban any dubious people, which means they can never bother you again. I have had to less than five people. Several were scammers and one was like a vintage photo.net troll who writes in simply to say something nasty (nearly extinct here, thank heavens). What was really nice was that I could get rid of these pests in a few minutes and forget them. On photo.net you need to contact the administration, explain the details of what the offensive person said then wait to see if the administrator sees the said offensive person as a true troll or only a harmless razzer. Even if the administrator decides the offensive person is indeed a genuine troll time has passed in the meantime and a bitter aftertaste lingers. </p>

<p>On Flickr I feel in control and unafraid. I feel more secure in experimenting with photographic themes than I do anywhere else. But Flickr is not the place for expert advice that you can readily find or extended discussion.</p>

<p>Another thing I like about Flickr is that you can post images of up to 20 megs if you are a paid member (a "Pro"). What I do not like is that unlike photo.net Flickr does not offer a lifetime membership option.</p>

<p> </p>

>>> How do you feel about Flickr and other pro photographer sites?

 

Flickr is not a "pro photographer" site. Also, there are very few well-known fine-arts photographers there.

I suspect that's because as photographers reach a level of recognition, having photos on flickr is viewed as a

detriment in projecting your image/message of what your photography is about.

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What I do not like is that unlike photo.net Flickr does not offer a lifetime membership option."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alex, where is the lifetime membership option offered on photo.net? I recall seeing it a few years ago but haven't for some time. </p>

<p>You can address the core of this topic as being just about flickr vs other "Pro" photographer sites but what I feel this is really about and want addressed is why would anyone want to be a part of any of these sites from a photographer's POV if not to promote one self among billions of other images found in a search. Everybody gets seen so nobody gets seen.</p>

<p>I was hoping these sites would enable a struggling photographer's images (pro or amateur) to be found by a broader if not targeted audience instead of buried in the billions of images we all see in a google seach.</p>

<p>I really don't care nor do I clearly understand how this can be done either through associative contextual interlinking with words used in a social discussion or keywording/tagging descriptive words embedded directly into the image, the photographer is still reduced to being a small voice in a crowd of billions. The really good images by dedicated folks making them that way are still lost or hidden in the crowd of mediocre snap shooters.</p>

<p>It's as if the photographer is still being corralled into utilizing a stock agency to be seen by media heads that still control what everyone gets to see. That's not the tool of empowerment I envisioned or expected the internet to be become. </p>

<p>And yeah, I do think my images are better than the touristy tubing/outfitter/hotel shots presented in the screenshot I posted earlier. I'm still wondering after six years as a Photo.net member and participant of tons of technical discussions on photography and digital imaging since 2000 on Adobe, Luminous Landscape and other sites, why the only way to find me on the internet is to directly enter my name in a google search.</p>

<p>Also from doing quite a few image searches on a wide range of subjects that interest me throughout the years I come across maybe one or two from Flickr and Photo.net. So I'm still left wondering if the internet is actually working as intended and how as photographers are we suppose to know that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Alex, where is the lifetime membership option offered on photo.net? I recall seeing it a few years ago but haven't for some time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We do not offer a lifetime subscription any longer.</p>

<p>Oh let me correct something. I do actually get found online other than entering my name.</p>

<p>Of all the heated discussions I've participated in concerning fluorescent lighting vs the Solux bulb, when I do a search on the meaning of Kelvin, neutral or daylight balanced lighting in an image or web search, <strong>I SHOW UP!</strong> But it's not my gallery images but the images I posted to show what these lights look like for viewing prints.</p>

<p>I tell you someone is controlling all this! There's still a top down feel to the way all this is working.</p>

<p>Oops! My aluminum foil hat fell off. Excuse me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was hoping these sites would enable a struggling photographer's images (pro or amateur) to be found by a broader if not targeted audience instead of buried in the billions of images we all see in a google seach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be clear, Photo.net's mission has never been to promote photographers. Photo.net is intended to be a community of photographers discussing, sharing, debating, critiquing, and enjoying photography. The fact that we are well indexed by google is a happy side effect of having run the site with the consistency that we have for 15 years now. Google sees that we are legit and that we just keep on trucking in the same general direction that we always have and that carries weight with them. Now, of course there are many fair and accurate critiques that can be made as to how we go about doing those things. But the idea of photo.net is that photographers would want to interact with each other over a shared love or interest in photography, not to "enable a struggling photographer's images (pro or amateur) to be found by a broader if not targeted audience". I love it when people sell an image that was found because it was on photo.net. But I love it more when people tell me that they have learned from the other members here, because that is what the site is designed to do.</p>

<p>In addition to the fact that you are asking for something that photo.net wasn't designed to do, you are also asking for something that goes to the heart of the multi billion dollar search and SEO industry. Juicing search rankings is neither easy or even possible many times. The search engines do not want it to be possible because they see that as a threat to the legitimacy of their results. Of course there are a few things you can try, I suggested some of them earlier to you, but there are no guarantees. I can't tell you how to "beat" google because google doesn't tell me. I can't offer that sort of attention as an aspect of being a part of photo.net because it isn't possible for me to deliver it.</p>

<p>I'm not taking a jab at Photo.net, why else would I be hanging out here over six years.</p>

<p>I'm reaching for straws on an issue I'm not able to understand or control. I'm describing a condition of what is expected and what is delivered for photographers on the internet and trying to figure out which site offers more control from a promotional aspect.</p>

<p>"Juicing search rankings" is actually what I'm suspecting is being done in promoting my home town demonstrated in the screenshot I posted and I'm trying to find a way to level the playing field and I'm getting stonewalled in every direction. I've talked to some well respected and intelligent ex-city council members about how the tourist, outfitters and hotel promoting industries dominate the search results preventing a broader audience of seeing other aspects of our town and he had no ideas how to beat that. And yeah, I agree, Photo.net can't and shouldn't be used for that.</p>

<p>So I'm looking at all other options that don't require I spend 24/7 in front of the computer making up discussions about my town as a way to contextually "juice" search rankings to level the SEO playing field.</p>

<p>@Tim,<br>

I've followed this conversation and I sympathise with your frustration. I remember hearing something about Google's indexing and search strategy that might help clarify things. The diagram and short video at this website <a href="http://realitypod.com/2010/10/visual-illustration-of-how-google-search-works/">http://realitypod.com/2010/10/visual-illustration-of-how-google-search-works/</a> explain it much better than I can.<br>

The points that Josh makes are in my view valid. I'm sure that as far as Google is concerned, Photo.net is a legimate site. But as long as other sites don't already link to your images posted here (or at Flickr, etc.), then these images are unlikely to rank highly in any google search (unless the tag is really unique). So it's kind of a catch 22 situation. The local sites you mention probably rank higher because sites in the tourist industry tend to include links to each other.<br>

I don't whether this would help, but one thing you could perhaps try is creating a number of sites (Facebook, Google+, Flickr, etc.) that include links to some of your images. You could test whether these images show up higher than images that are not linked.<br>

As Josh says, increasing the chances of being found by Google is a whole industry!</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Mike.</p>

<p>Decided to investigate over at Google's site and found like you said an entire SEO industry...</p>

<p>

<p>Now all I have to do is wait for all theses videos to run in constant rotation on my cable channels as 3 AM infomercials.</p>

<p>Everybody wants to get into the act!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Flickr is not a "pro photographer" site.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah it is. Pro photographers post there. I mean people who make money off photography. If the super greats do not post there it because they are making big money elsewhere. Flickr traffic is little different from that of photo.net. I belong to both and see no reason to put one above the other.</p>

<p>Interesting to learn I am one of the few photo,net lifers. I'll be here when I am undone, when I am no one (as Theodore Roethke said).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I... see no reason to put one above the other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. flickr is what it is, photo.net is what it is. Just recently someone posted a link to an image of mine from flickr in a discussion on photo.net. Not because it's great or they know me, but because for that search term that image is the first thing that shows up, and not just an image search but web search in google too.</p>

<p>I am also a photo.net lifer that likes flickr, and as Alex said, their are many pros and fine art photographers on flickr (Alec Soth and Brian Ulrich quickly come to mind). There are a ton of really good "groups" and the "contact" thing makes it easy to keep up with the work of your favorite photographers. </p>

<p><em>Flickr is not a "pro photographer" site. ... Yeah it is</em><br>

I don’t doubt that some pro photographers post on flickr and even find groups which are of interest to them. On the other hand, flickr’s start page states they have five billion pictures on line, with 60 million photographers participating and 10 million groups - that's more than anyone could view in 10 lifetimes!. Flickr also offers an introductory tour, the first thing it shows is a guy blowing fart noises at his dog (his own description). I furthermore have the impression that a typical flickr user is one who shoots 100 pictures of his/her friends falling about drunk and gurning at the camera and uploads the lot without any critical perspective whatsoever. Pro photographers can join in if they wish, some clearly do, but I sure as hell don’t!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Flickr also offers an introductory tour, the first thing it shows is a guy blowing fart noises at his dog (his own description).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Link, please? ;)</p>

<p>You got it Tim!<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/tour/#section=tell-a-story">http://www.flickr.com/tour/#section=tell-a-story</a></p>

<p>LOL! David! Yeah, I can see Ansel Adams having a gallery next to that.</p>

<p>I actually have a flickr gallery but don't pay too much attention to it and neither does anyone else. Was never aware of the flickr page you linked. </p>

<p>Thanks for posting it.</p>

<p>I like Flickr as a research tool that helps me see what work has been produced at a location that I might be thinking of travelling to. Now most photographs up there are preety mundane, but if out of a few thousand posts there are a few interesting photographs, that tells me that I might be able to make something of it too. <br>

Equally Flickr is strong on some genres in particular- the whole derelict/abandoned/scrap area is particularly well covered and that interests me. IMO the best practicioners in this field pretty much all have active Flickr accounts, though you might not consider that to be a "professional" genre (though there is a lot of work that I'd consider to be of professional standard). I have a Flickr account because it seems to me reasonable that if I'm going to look at others' work and possibly take some stimulus from it then I should at the very least reciprocate.</p>

<p>yes there are some great photos are available here that can effect your feelings....</p>