Flickr auto-tagging is a disaster

<p>Flickr continues to baffle the masses with their self-destruction and race towards oblivion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Source: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/20/flickr-complaints-offensive-auto-tagging-photos</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well at least there's one photo hosting site where tagging actually works with SEO indexing, just wish it wasn't in a bad way outlined in that article.</p>

<p>That's just unbelievable, but I bet it'll get fixed now that I'm sure it's going to go viral and soon to be seen in constant rotation among all TV news networks.</p>

<p>It's a boring discussion. Every single time Flicker changes something, a bunch of people get their shorts tied up, saying they'll leave, posting protest anywhere they can, and predicting the ultimate demise of the whole site and all the internet and living beings connected to it, then the whole universe. A few people leave Flickr in a righteous huff , a few thousand more join, and the site continues on, essentially undisturbed.<br>

It's not the changes that bother me; it's the incessant whining about them.</p>

<p>It's a little more serious than Flickr merely changing a feature and users whining about any sort of change. I've changed the thread title to more accurately reflect the issue, which is described in the Guardian headline:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"Flickr faces complaints over 'offensive' auto-tagging for photos</strong><br /> <strong> Auto-tagging system slaps ‘animal’ and ‘ape’ labels on images of black people, and tags concentration camps with ‘jungle gym’ and‘sport’"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>and...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The system itself doesn’t appear to applying race as a factor, since at least one other photo, <a href=" data-link-name="in body link" data-component="in-body-link">of a white woman</a>, was also given the “animal” and “ape” tags.</em><br /> <em>Elsewhere, <a href=" data-link-name="in body link" data-component="in-body-link">photos of Dachau concentration camp</a> have been auto-tagged with the “jungle gym”, “sport” and “trellis” tags, while an instantly recognisable photo of the entrance to Auschwitz was also given the “sport” tag."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>At the very least this indicates auto-tagging wasn't adequately beta tested, and Flickr didn't respond promptly to reports of inappropriate tagging.</p>

<p>I recall the uproar over the new format change a year or so ago. Personally I liked the wall of photos. But I rarely use Flickr because it's incredibly slow on anything other than my desktop hardwired to the modem. It's among the slowest sites I've tried via the low end laptop on wifi - even slower than Facebook via web browser, which is pretty bad. The mobile app isn't too bad but is also too limited in functionality. Flickr's main hindrance is the awkward and slow navigation.</p>

<p>I thought the more tags you had the better. Not likely Flickr is going to try to alienate groups of users with offensive tags, so no one should be getting their panties in a bunch over this. When you consider the fact that it's a photo-recognition software creating them, it's really kind of amazing technology even if it misses from time to time. They're just tags.</p>

<p>The article just mentions the most egregious examples of the auto-tagging solely based on image recognition and as such are an unintentional consequence and the tip of the iceberg of inaccurately applied auto-tags - the sheer number of which indicate clearly that flickr/Yahoo desires the system to do more than its currently capable of. One needs to be able to walk before one can run - and the auto-tagging robot can barely stand.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At the very least this indicates auto-tagging wasn't adequately beta tested, and Flickr didn't respond promptly to reports of inappropriate tagging.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It appears those auto-tags have been around for a year or so - they were hidden though and only very recently made visible to the user. They should be more accurately described as "search words" - they do not show up when the flickr search is restricted to "tags only" and are also not included in the list of tags that every user can see and edit. At this time, the only way to for the user to interact with these auto-tags is by deleting them, one at a time, one image at the time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a boring discussion. Every single time Flicker changes something, a bunch of people get their shorts tied up, saying they'll leave, posting protest anywhere they can, and predicting the ultimate demise of the whole site and all the internet and living beings connected to it, then the whole universe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Flickr has made several sea changes to the site which were clearly not improvements at all and really not even needed. If you've read the feedback forums thousands of users were, and have been, rightly upset about Flickr making the site slower and more confusing. The only option for us it to quit the site or just deal with it, but the experience as a whole is just more tedious altogether. First and foremost, the pictures look awfully small in that black/dark gray background when they used to be on a white background and were sized bigger on the page. The format changes they've made in recent years were not user friendly and required way more clicking to do basic stuff. And like Lex Jenkins mentioned above, the site is ridiculously slow (when it was not before the big changes) which has to drive down the amount of time people use the site.</p>

<p>The thing is, why does Flickr waste time installing an auto-tagging feature in the first place? Most users are quite capable of putting in their own specific tags, or none at all if they choose. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The thing is, why does Flickr waste time installing an auto-tagging feature in the first place? Most users are quite capable of putting in their own specific tags, or none at all if they choose.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because there is a (in their opinion) a good business reason to have tags and they don't want to rely on users actually adding them (or not). If an image can be auto tagged then they can show better targeted advertising. Look at pictures of <em>Angkor Wat</em> to get an advert for an airline that will fly you there.</p>

<p>Google+ added auto-tagging a year ago, Facebook has had auto-tagging since 2011. Why would Flickr want to stay uncompetitive? This seems like pointless complaining.</p>