Archive for the ‘Facebook’ Category
Yesterday I was prompted by Facebook and asked if I wanted to take a survey on my Facebook page. I said yes and took the survey. Here are the questions that Facebook asked me. Maybe this survey gives some insight into what they are thinking about in terms of public perception and product development. I don’t know anything more about the survey. I don’t know who it was targeted towards, how many people were given it, or any other demographic or statistical data.
1. Do you manage the Facebook page or public profile you were just visiting?
Yes, I manage this page by myself
Yes, I manage this page along with 1-4 other people
Yes, I manage this page along with more than 4 people
No, I do not manage this page
2. What is your role in managing this Facebook page or public profile?
I am the public figure this Facebook page or public profile is about
I am an Account Manager — I work for a third-party management firm
I don’t manage the page directly — I make partnership and business decisions
3. Do you manage your Facebook page or public profile using the Facebook website or app, or do you use a tool such as HootSuite, CoTweet, or Seesmic?
I primarily use the Facebook website or app to manage my Facebook page or public profile
I primarly only use another tool such as HootSuite, CoTweet, or Seesmic to manage my page or public profile
I use both the Facebook website or app and another tool equally
4. Approximately how many fans or subscribers does your page have?
5. Approximately how often do you post from your Facebook page or public profile?
Multiple times per day
About once a day
2-6 days a week
About once a week
2-3 times a month
About once a month
Less often than once a month
6. About what percent of the time are the posts composed by the public figure this page is about (rather than another person or agency posting on the figure’s behalf)?
Less than 20%
Between 20% and 40%
More than 40%, but less than 60%
Between 60% and 80%
I don’t know
7. If you were to post something to your page, approximately what percent of your Facebook fans would you expect to have the post show up in their news feed?
Less than 20%
Between 20% and 40%
More than 40%, but less than 60%
Between 60% and 80%
More than 80%, but less than 100%
I don’t know
8. What percentage of Facebook’s engineering resources do you think are dedicated to increasing revenue (versus developing new products and improving on existing products for our users)?
Less than 20%
Between 20% and 40%
More than 40%, but less than 60%
Between 60% and 80%
More than 80%, but less than 100%
I don’t know
9. Relative to other initiatives, how important is your Facebook page or public profile in meeting your business objectives?
Not at all important
10. Please indicate how important each of these metrics is to you when you are trying to evaluate the overall success of your Facebook page or public profile.
(Choices offered were: not at all important, somewhat important, very important)
Referral traffic (e.g. website visits)
Content engagement (e.g. video views, likes, comments on posts)
Increased reach (e.g. fanbase growth)
11. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? My Facebook page or public profile helps me to accomplish my business objectives
Neither agree or disagree
12. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? I am happy with the level of engagement my fans have with my Facebook page or public profile
Neither agree or disagree
13. Overall, how satisfied are you with the rate at which you acquire new Facebook fans?
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14. Overall, how satisfied are you with managing a Facebook page or public profile?
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
15. In your opinion, what amount of improvement, if any, is required to make the page or profile management tools Facebook provides you excellent?
16. Do you manage a public page or profile on any other social media platforms?
No, I do not manage a public page or profile on any other sites
Yes, I manage a page or public profile on at least one other site
17.On what other social media platforms do you manage a public page or profile?
Other (fill in)
18. On which service do you most often post
Other (fill in)
19. Compared to your consumer facing experiences on other platforms, how satisfied are you with your experience managing a Facebook page or public profile?
About the same level of satisfaction
20. How important is it to you to be able to manage your Facebook page or public profile from a mobile device?
Not at all important
21. When you publish content from a mobile phone, what device do you typically use?
Tablet (such as iPad)
I never publish from a mobile device
Other (fill in)
22. In your opinion, what amount of improvement, if any, is required to make the Facebook page and public profile administration experience excellent?
23. In what ways would you like to see the Facebook page and public profile administration experience improve? (select the TOP 3 improvements you’d like to see)
I would like to be able to post additional types of content
I would like to be able to post more easily
I would like to know more about my fans
I would like my fans to share more of my posts with their friends
I would like to be able to test which posts perform best
I would like to drive more traffic to my primary website
I would like my posts to reach more fans
I would like to see everything my fans are saying about me/the public figure
I would like to see how the activity of my fan base compares to that of other public figures
I would like to be able to use hashtags
Other (fill in)
24. Please share any additional feedback you may have about your experience as a Facebook page or public profile administrator.
25. We would like to hear more about your experience with Facebook in the future. Would you be interested in receiving additional surveys on this topic?
25. Would you be interested in participating in a brief phone interview on this topic?
I had the new Facebook Timeline turned on for me yesterday. My wife got it about a week ago. Does anyone else have it? Do you like it? Anyone ever seen that movie Memento?
Photos feel larger — I like that — but I don’t really like the way that photos are cropped.
The old timeline forced everything into a square box by default so landscape/portrait crops were still problematic. You could reposition the photo after the fact (sometimes, when the reposition tool worked, which was probably less than 10% of the time for me) but your photo got stuck in a square crop. You could also “feature” the photo which would give it an extreme horizontal crop manually.
By the way, I seem to be able to use the reposition tool again now with the switch over to the new timeline.
Part of me liked the old Facebook timeline format. I love the square photo. It’s my favorite crop of all. When I uploaded a square to Facebook it would then show perfectly on my timeline page. If the other crops suffered, oh well.
The new timeline page goes back to a traditional landscape crop. So now when you upload your landscape oriented photos to Facebook they fit and look great. Unfortunately though, now both the portrait and the square crop are squashed into a landscape box.
Why on earth doesn’t Facebook just display BOTH landscape and square crops in their original crop? This is what they do on mobile btw, so it would seem more consistent. This would mean that square photos would be even bigger on the web version of Facebook, but everybody wants bigger photos anyways, so why make our square crop photos suffer in that landscape oriented box? This is what Flickr does by the way. On Flickr the square crop is king. I love that.
Of course portrait oriented photos get butchered even worse now with the new Facebook timeline — now they are squeezing a portrait photo into a landscape orientation instead of a square. Some of these just look awful.
It does feel like Facebook is trying to somehow more intelligently decide which portion of square and portrait photos get shown in the landscape box. Maybe their algorithm is looking for the eyes and focusing on that. I’m not sure, but it feels like the auto cropping is a little smarter and more intelligent.
Google+ takes a different approach. They retain the photographer’s original crop… but then you are stuck with those damn grey bars on the sides of your square and portrait photos on G+. For the life of Kevin, I’m not sure why G+ doesn’t just let the square photo have the entire envelope. It would look much better than those tiny little gray bars on the side and it’s just giving square photos an ensy weensy more real estate.
Which is what Facebook should do too, by the way. Square crops sort of fit into the landscape envelope, but why make the square suffer that way? Just liberate it. Make the square the king. I thought Facebook was doing this on the newsfeed a couple of weeks ago, but I think they switched back to cramming a square photo in a landscape box with both the new newsfeed and timeline now too.
Is there an answer to this perplexing problem about how best to display our images on the web? Why can’t we just have one big, gigantic mosaic wall on both Facebook and Google+; that’s actually my favorite format of all, I think.
Other changes on the new Facebook timeline, include moving your follower count over to a smaller, less prominent place on the left. They also give the actual number now, instead of something that just gave a rounded estimate, such as 300K, before. You can add/remove remove certain modules out of the smaller left side column if you want.
Despite the photo crop issues, overall I like the new timeline a lot. I like it better than the old version. It feels more fluid and slick. I do like that, overall, photos do appear bigger. Landscape oriented photos especially look great there now.
The new comment system drives me a little batty though. I can never figure out who is talking to who and I feel like I’m trapped in some sort of web version of the movie Memento — but that’s a whole other topic entirely. I can never understand who said what in what order to who. I feel like I’m trapped in some sort of online version of that old movie Memento.
Unfortunately, as usual, with the new Facebook timeline we’re still stuck with the damn ads. I wish Facebook’s ads weren’t so especially vulgar. Why is Facebook trying to get me to join some lawsuit about unpaid wages at Brooks Brothers? I hate lawsuits — plus I’ve never worked at Brooks Brothers. Shouldn’t Facebook be smarter than that in terms of what ads it shows me? Why does Facebook think I worked at Brooks Brothers? Next thing you know some other ambulance chaser is going to start advertising at me just in case I’ve ever had Mesothelioma. Facebook should let us pay for a Pro account and exempt us from bad advertising.
By the way, anyone ever seen that movie Memento?
I’ve been using the new Facebook News Feed for a little while now. One of the things I noticed about it today (and maybe new even since the News Feed launch) is that square photos are now king on Facebook.
What do I mean by this? Square photos are the largest sized photos in the new Facebook News Feed. This is similar to how Flickr shows photos in our Flickrstreams.
Google+ on the other hand tries to squeeze a square photo into a horizontal photo envelope, which makes the square photo on Google+ have little side bars on it and looks awkward, smaller and ugly.
I, for one, welcome the new square format as the king of Facebook. The square crop is my favorite. What’s your favorite crop?
I got the new Facebook news feed last night. The screenshot above is what it looks like. It’s super awesome. A very small minority of people will hate it — because a very small minority of people will hate EVERYTHING. I’m not kidding. The way some people love to bitch blows my mind sometimes. Haters gonna hate.
Most of you will love it though. I think it’s the most significant improvement made to Facebook since Facebook started. If you’re a photographer, you especially will love it. Photos are bigger. Bigger photos have more impact. Bigger photos look better.
When you’re eligible for it you’ll notice a little “coming soon, less clutter, more stories” box on your news feed. There is a green button to press to give it a try. If you press that green button you get the loading message. I think there was one other notice window that popped up telling me that I couldn’t go back if I went forward with it, but I can’t remember 100% on this. After this loading box the new news feed pops up.
I’ve only played with the new news feed for a few hours, but here are just a few early observations.
1. Content in the new news feed feels ALOT like Google+. I’m not saying Facebook copied Google+ here, and imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery and all that, but check out the two content envelopes side by side in the photo below. They are pretty darn close.
Personally speaking I have no problem with this by the way. I love competition on the web. With competition users win. Everybody should rip everybody off and make everything look as awesome as it possibly can.
2. Pictures are bigger and stand out more, but unfortunately so do all of those crappy memes and worse, sponsored posts (ugh! advertising — the new advertisement for McDonald’s new fish McNuggets feels even more intrusive). Please Facebook, let us pay you for a Pro account and let us opt out of all the horrible ads.
The meme’s are really my own fault though. When I started Facebook years ago, I simply accepted every single friend request, whether I knew somebody or not. Hey, I’m a friendly guy. I now realize that was a mistake. I think as I unfriend the most egregious of the meme sharers this should improve a bit for me.
Sometimes though there is just that one person that for whatever reason you CAN’T unfriend. You know who I’m talking about. They’d take it really hard. Yet it’s that one person who keeps sharing the crappiest meme things on Facebook 50 times a day. If you’re that guy, knock it off. Sometimes I wish there was an easy way to permanently hide someone’s content without actually unfriending them.
3. The hide button is broken. One of the things that I like about Facebook is their move fast and break things moto. Sometimes though this means that everything doesn’t work so well. I haven’t been able to reposition photos on my timeline for weeks now. My wife can’t upload photos directly to Facebook at all. She has to upload to an album and share from the album.
What I’ve found on the new news feed is that when I hide content, it doesn’t stay hidden. It stays hidden for that session, but if I refresh the page it comes back. I don’t know if this is just a bug for me or for everyone, but if I actually HATE something enough to hide it, I really, really don’t like it — and after I went through the pain of a two click effort, I’d really like it to stay permanently hidden from my news feed.
4. I still haven’t figured out exactly how Facebook is repositioning photos that are less ideal for their new envelope. It seems like some portrait aspect and square aspect photos are being stuffed into a landscape frame. It also seems like some are not though — it’s weird why some are and some aren’t. I wonder if there is some sort of algorithm at play here as well, because when photos are repositioned, a lot of the time it’s a pretty smart natural reposition. Like Facebook is focusing on the eyes in photos of people.
The apple screensheet below is from my friend Kelli Seeger Kim. It’s actually a portrait oriented photograph of two apples in a basket. If you click through the image you’ll see it correctly, but in the news feed the crop is less than ideal. So sometimes this feels a little awkward.
Overall the new design is clean and light and lovely. It feels very smooth and really nice. Photos really pop now that they are bigger. I’d give this redesign two thumbs up!
Congrats to the Facebook team on the great work! You can find me on Facebook here. Come find me and let’s be friendly.
“Whatever kind of victory all those protests achieved, it wasn’t one for consumer rights — if anything, Instagram is the real winner here. The company just managed to score a round of positive press for retracting an unpopular change and give itself the ability to actually use photos in ads.” — Nilay Patel, The Verge
Over at the Verge Nilay Patel makes a case that the backlash earlier this week against Instagram’s unpopular TOS update was actually a loss for consumers, not a gain. He argues that Instagram’s current TOS is broader than their more explicit proposed one and so consumers are worse off, not better off. This is because Instagram technically still holds the rights to sell your photos under their current TOS, and even more broadly — the consumer backlash was misguided and really did more harm than good.
I disagree with Nilay and actually feel that this week’s backlash was one of the more significant movements yet for photo sharing on the web.
It’s not that Facebook (whose TOS is equally broad) and Instagram couldn’t legally sell your photos on the web under their broad TOS in the past or in the future, it’s that *politically* it is now far more difficult for them to begin selling your photos out from under you on the web using their broader TOS.
Who cares what the TOS says — the message that Facebook got loud and clear this week is not to f*** with our photos. Our photos are important. We care about them. They are much more personal than Facebook may have previously considered. They have emotional importance and significance and collectively users will rise up and bash you in the face if you try to exercise terms of your TOS that your lawyers have written to allow you to screw around with our photos.
Whatever your future monetization strategies might be, they will not be based on a loss of control over OUR creative efforts — even our duckface creative efforts.
No, there is no question about it. Instagram lost this week, and they lost big. This is in no way a positive for Instagram. People trust them less now and they had to turn around and eat crow — they gained nothing.
Flickr won big at Instagram’s expense and Google+ won a little. Flickr won more, because like Instagram, their site is 100% about photography. They also just released a pretty awesome new iPhone app that is, in fact, even slickr than what Instagram currently offers.
Flickr also went out of their way last year to really drive home the ownership rights of your photos. This old forgotten post was revived with new life as a stark contrast to what it felt like Instagram was trying to pull. Kevin Systrom eventually even had to parrot back some of that “yes, we know your photos are your photos” stuff in his awkward non-apology apology.
Dan Lyons wrote a post that talked about Google+ winning some here too. Google+ smartly has a provision in their TOS that specifically limits their rights to your photos to basic operational use. Google+ is probably the most active community of photographers on the web today and are a natural beneficiary from what Lyons’ refers to as “Facebook Greedheads.”
The biggest winner of all though was you, the photographer. Whatever Instagram’s original intention was with the new language in their TOS, it backfired on them. The idea that they could/would profit off your emotionally significant photos without your consent, authorization or, most important, sharing the dough hit a nerve with photographers and likely won’t be tried again by anyone for a long time.
The thing is, this didn’t have to be such a painful learning experience for Instagram. There was/is, in fact, a HUGE opportunity for some smart social network to make a ton of money off of your photos. Instagram just went about it wrong.
As much as Flickr’s deal with Getty sucks (photographers get a miserly 20% payout) photographers on Flickr still went bonkers for it when Flickr released it. The idea that you could actually get PAID to post your photos on a social network, paid ANYTHING, had most users on Flickr clamoring to get into the program, not out of the site.
Even though Flickr/Getty’s call for artists group is now closed (due to overwhelming demand) almost 90,000 photographers joined this group hoping to get selected by Getty for the right to sell their photos for the paltry 20% payout.
The difference with Flickr’s deal though is that 1. you CHOOSE to opt in and 2. at least you get paid something.
What if, instead of Instagram saying, “hey, we might sell your photos without your consent and pay you NOTHING,” they said, “hey, do you want to sell your Instagram photos and, if we sell them for you, split the money 50/50″? Instead of losing accounts and becoming the scourge of the internet for three days, they would have had photographers rushing to sign up and begin marketing their images on Instagram.
Although there are sites out there like 500px and SmugMug that let you sell your photos now, Flickr is the only larger social network that has a selling program. Google+, Instagram, Facebook, and even Twitter all have a major opportunity to become the first large social network to allow us to license our images through their service and share in the revenue with them. This is a multi-BILLION dollar industry dominated at present by Getty who is not paying creatives enough for their work. What the internet does best is get rid of middlemen when they are being unreasonable, and an 80/20 split with photographers is unreasonable.
Instead of stealing our work and paying us zero, how about using your significant reach in reputation, marketing and search to partner with us and empower us to sell our work together. I guarantee you that whoever comes up with the best program first will have some of the best photography on the web flooding their network. Even if 99% of us never sell a single photo, simply giving us the feeling that we have the *opportunity* to sell a photo would be a powerful incentive to get us active and humming on your network.
Update: Instagram just posted a blog post clarifying their intentions with their new TOS. More specifically it sounds as if they are going to be changing the wording on the controversial portion of their new TOS and strengthening your ownership rights over your photos. Seems like all the backlash was enough to make them back pedal on this one.
From Kevin Systrom:
“The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things likes advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content while building a self-sustaining business at the same time.
Ownership Rights Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period.”
Earlier today Instagram announced that they are changing their Terms of Service effective January 13th 2013.
The most controversial part of the change is outlined below:
“To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.”
Now I have no idea if Instagram actually plans on selling/licensing your photos or not — sometimes the lawyers get a hold of things like this and push the envelope too far with a TOS — but this change seems to go further to me than the typical giving up of rights to your photos for typical social media display purposes.
Facebook’s TOS by contrast reads:
“For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”
While this appears functionally similar to Instagram’s, Facebook doesn’t actually mention so specifically the idea of selling your content and you getting zero compensation.
Google+’s TOS tends to provide photographers greater protection with a provision that your content there can be used for the “limited purpose of operating, promoting and improving our services, and to develop new ones.” Nothing about selling off your photos to third parties there, folks.
“When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.”
Flickr takes it even one step further actually dedicating a specific blog post to this issue last year titled “At Flickr Your Photos are Always Yours.”
This change today has upset a lot of photographers and content creators. The New York Times takes apart the new TOS here. Blogger Robert Wagner puts his view more succinctly in a blog post titled Goodbye Instagram and f*** you.
Personally speaking, I trust that Google will not sell my photos out from underneath me. I think their TOS is pretty clear about their limited scope of use. I applaud Flickr for taking it one step further with a blog post spelling out that you always own your photos on Flickr. Interestingly enough, even before this announcement I saw my first “I’m leaving you Instagram for Flickr” post this past weekend.
Wired has a post that shows you how to take your photos off of Instagram and delete your account.
Gizmodo seems to take a different view of this situation, calling folks concerned with today’s announcement whiny little babies.
What are your thoughts? Will you continue to use Instagram? Are photographers overreacting here?
My own view is that I think Instagram is pushing it a little too far with this one. I think I’d rather pay them a subscription fee like I pay Flickr than have them out there selling my photos.
Where Does a Former National Geographic Photographer and Current Yahoo Exec in Charge of Flickr Share His Photos? Yep, You Guessed it Google+
Update 12-01-2012, I think Yahoo Exec Adam Cahan just went public with a Flickr account.
Update 12-12-2012. Marissa Mayer just went public with her Flickr account today as well here.
Late last week over at All Things Digital, Kara Swisher reported on the appointment of the latest high profile Yahoo exec, Adam Cahan. In addition to reporting directly into Marissa Mayer and overseeing mobile for Yahoo (super important!) it was also announced that Cahan would be put in charge of Flickr, the photo sharing site that so many of us love.
On the surface this is great news. The fact that the guy who is now overseeing Flickr reports directly into Mayer may mean that Flickr’s profile is moving up internally at Yahoo. After a few years of Flickr layoffs and shrinking, it looks like Yahoo once again is staffing up in photo sharing!
In addition to staffing up, over the past year Yahoo has probably improved Flickr more than any other year in its existence. They’ve added a really nice new justified page layout for your contact’s photos and favorites (hopefully coming to search, photostreams and sets soon!), they added a new meet up page where they are getting active with photowalks again (check out this shot from their Austin photowalk this past weekend), they created a new liquid photo format that expands photos to the size of your monitor (slick!), they also increased the maximum size for photos for paid accounts to 50MB! (Facebook and Google+ downsize your photos).
So my question is, why with so much excitement going on around Flickr, why don’t Yahoo employees use or care more about the service?
A lesser known thing about Adam Cahan, the new Yahoo exec in charge of Flickr, is that according to the San Jose business Journal he’s a former National Geographic wildlife photographer. So here’s the guy who is in charge of Flickr, definitely talented with a camera, and where is he choosing to share *his* photographs? Yep, you guessed it Google+! Here’s a photo he posted earlier this year there for the 75th Anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Of course, Cahan is just following by example really here, his boss Marissa Mayer chooses to post her own photos over at Instagram instead of Flickr.
Why is Flickr such a pariah that Yahoo’s own executives (even the one directly in charge of Flickr) won’t dare to use it personally?
Certainly Google and Facebook employees share their photos on Google+ and Facebook. So why aren’t Yahoo executives doing the same thing?
I believe that leadership is done by example. I also believe that every company should encourage dogfooding and should encourage their employees to use their own products. I think this sends a better message to users when you feel like people who work for the company use it too.
The message that Mayer and Cahen send when they shun Flickr and instead post their photos on competing photo sharing sites is that those sites are better than Flickr. The exact message that they should be trying to change if they really care about Flickr.
Now I’m all for Yahoo executives testing out the competition. Actually I think that’s smart. They *should* have accounts on Instagram and Google+ and Facebook and all that — but they should *also* have accounts at Flickr and they should be acting as Flickr’s biggest cheerleaders in the same way that Vic Gundotra does for Google+ over there.
There is a current conversation going on over at Flickr in their highest profile discussion group that Flickr is dying. Yahoo should care about discussions like this. Yahoo employees should actually be involved in them and trying to convince people that Flickr is not dying, that a comeback is just around the corner — but in order to be involved in conversations like this Yahoo employees need to actually, you know, have an actual Flickr account.
It’s not hard, really, you can even use your Facebook or Google+ account to sign into Flickr these days. Directly from the Flickr sign up page: “It takes less than a minute to create your free account & start sharing! Have a Google or Facebook account? You can use them to sign in!”
Flickr’s tagline is “almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world.” That’s been it’s tagline for years now. So if this is true, why don’t Yahoo execs want to use it to manage and share their photos? If that tagline isn’t true anymore maybe Yahoo execs should think about changing it to “almost certainly *was* the best online photo management and sharing application in the world.”
I was thinking yesterday back to all the excitement that was around Flickr back in the olden days. Natural disasters tend to be things that galvanize social sharing, and especially photos. Back in 2005 when Katrina hit, Flickr was the go to place for people to post photos online about the disaster. Not only were the best user generated photos flowing into Flickr, they were flowing in fast and furious. Flickr was recognized for the Katrina photos in the national press. A group was started on Flickr to do a print auction to raise funds for Katrina survivors. The very next year Time Magazine named Flickr co-Founders Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake as two of the 100 most influential people in the world! Butterfield and Fake both had Flickr accounts by the way.
More recently hurricane Sandy hit New York. Was Flickr the go to place this time for photos? No. Everywhere you went in the national press it was 24/7 Instagram. It’s telling that Time Magazine — the very same Time Magazine that recognized Flickr and their founders/managers after Hurricane Katrina — recruited five professional photographers this time around to cover hurricane Sandy for them on… Instagram, the same photo sharing site where Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer shares her photos.
By the way, photos taken after Oct 15th tagged Sandy on Flickr? 36,000. Photos tagged Sandy on Instagram? Over 800,000. Now just today Instagram announced photos on the web.
On a personal level, my photos at Facebook and Google+ get far more views and engagement than they do on Flickr — not just a little more, a lot more — as in hundreds of times more. I’m still rooting for Flickr though. They were the photo sharing service that I started out with back in 2004. They still have the best photo organizational tools on the web and at $25 for over 70,000 full high res photos of mine they are a bargain. Competition in the photo sharing space is good for all of us. It benefits the user. I just wish I felt like Yahoo actually wanted to win more with Flickr. Maybe this will change though and some day soon I’ll be able to add Mayer and Cahan as contacts of mine on Flickr. I bet as a former National Geographic pro Cahan has got some great shots.
Facebook is currently in the process of rolling out a new and improved photos page for users. I’ve been part of a beta group testing out this new page over the last week and I have to say that the new photos layout is a huge step forward for photos on Facebook.
It is inevitable that the new page will be compared to Google+’s photos page and while there are similarities there as also some differences as well.
Like Google+, on your photos page, as well as on the photo page of your friends, you can hover over any thumbnail and like or comment on a photo with a single click without ever leaving the page. This allows you to like many more photos in one place at once than you could previously do. This new hover and like/fave/+1 functionality is a major lubricant for social activity on photos.
Although it may feel like Facebook copied G+ here, if my memory serves correct, it was Flickr who first introduced this hover/fave action for us in their “photos from your contacts” page. So maybe Facebook and G+ are both actually copying Flickr here more than anything. One small cosmetic difference between Facebook and Google+ here is that on G+, the +1/comment stats are light gray that light up when you hover to interact. On Facebook the stat information is gone completely unless you hover and then it appears for you to interact with.
One nice hover tool that Facebook also introduces us to here is the ability to remove yourself from a photo directly from the hover action. I’ve never quite understood why people feel the need to tag me in photos that I am not in on G+/Flickr/Facebook, but when they do I usually just delete the tag and block them. It’s nice to be able to more easily do this now with the new photos page on Facebook.
In the past, Facebook’s photos page had a very stale 4×3 small thumbnail format. You had to actually click through to your “Wall Photos” as a separate album to even get to these. The smallish thumbnails were all the exact same size. There was too much white space around the thumbnails.
With the new Facebook photos page Facebook has recropped all of your photos as square photos. While some photographers dislike the squaring of photos on the web, I actually love the square. It’s my favorite crop of all and I think it works well from a design standpoint in showing off the photos. G+’s photos page, btw, uses more of a justified mosiac page that retains a photographer’s original crop and squeezes them all together to fit on a page. I love the justified/mosaic view as well — in fact, I have a hard time deciding whether I like the square or mosaic layout format the most, I just love them both so much.
One of my favorite new features about the new Facebook photos page (that G+ doesn’t have yet) is that it gives you the ability to make some photos bigger than others. Facebook’s new square thumbnails themselves are bigger now than the old 4×3 thumbnails and with less white space on the page, but even better, you can now choose to highlight favorite photos turning them into even larger oversized timeline sized squares.
One area where I think that this new manual resizing and highlighting of photos is going to be huge is in the “Photos of You” section. Let’s face it. You’re so vain. I bet you think this blog post is about you, don’t you? Giving people the ability to highlight the photos of themselves that they look the best in will be irresistible to many.
Whether the new Facebook photos page is “inspired” by Google+ or Flickr or not, I think it’s great to see the continued evolution of photo presentation on the social web. In general our photos are getting larger, better looking and easier to engage with. This is wonderful.
One negative about the new Facebook photos page is that like the old photos page it still comes with ads on the right side of the page (unlike G+’s page which is advertising free). I cropped these advertisements out of my screenshots because, well, they don’t look very elegant. Obviously Facebook counts on this advertising revenue to keep the lights on and I can’t begrudge them for running advertisements next to my photos as their service is free, but it still detracts from the aesthetic experience in my opinion. I’m not sure what the answer here is. Would I pay $25/year for an ad-free version of Facebook like I do with Flickr? I think I would.
Two weeks ago when I was down visiting with the photos team at Facebook one of the things that Dirk Stoop (pictured above) showed me was this awesome new camera app that Facebook was launching for the iPhone. I couldn’t talk about it until they released it, but today they released it and I have to say that Facebook is seriously uping the ante with photography on the web with this awesome new app.
The app is bound to invite comparisons with Instagram, who Facebook is in the process of acquiring, but there is one huge difference. With Instragram your photos really only reside in one place, on mobile in the Instagram app. With Facebook Camera your photos exist in three places. In the Facebook Camera app, in the Facebook mobile app, and on Facebook on the web. In this way Facebook’s new camera app is more of a complement to your existing Facebook experience than it is a standalone photo experience like Instagram.
The end result though is that your photos on Facebook are going to start getting alot more attention.
I’m increasingly coming to the opinion that far away the most important part of a social networking experience are photos. Photos dominate our social experiences. Everybody has a camera now with the proliferation of camera phones.
Put more succinctly, photographs are becoming the new language of the social web. A picture paints a thousand words. Old text posts are getting lost and buried and what is replacing that is our short-attention span preference for photos.
We want photos from our friends and we want them fast and furious. We don’t want our new photo communication experience to be bogged down and cluttered up with dumb non-photo things like status updates, or lunch updates, or check ins, or rants, or dumb jokes, or any of that other stuff. Give us the pure stuff. Give us the photostream and nothing but the photostream.
Take a look at the most popular +1′d posts on Google+ from the last week. With a couple notable exceptions, what do all of the popular posts have in common? They all have an image. Photo, photo, photo, photo. If you publish anything on the web anymore without a photo it had better be damn interesting, important or insightful or some sort of immediate breaking news. Everything else, MUST have a photo. Publish text without a photo and you fail. Publish text with a kick ass photo and you succeed. Photographers of course are welcoming this new trend. Those of us with mad photo skills end up getting the most attention. And we’re just about to get a whole lot more with Facebook Camera.
What Facebook Camera is going to do is pull lots of attention away from other ways that we consume mobile. The message to social networks is clear. If you want people to use your social network, give us the tools to remove the clutter of the non-photo world. I don’t want to read a long passage of text. I’ve only got 20 minutes on my BART trip home. Rather than read some long boring post, instead I can favorite/like/+1 200 of my favorite photos by my friends instead.
Facebook Camera is tipping the scales even more between photographers and non-photographers. A great number of people on Facebook will choose to use this new photo app instead of the Facebook mobile app, effectively burying any non-photo post on Facebook. Those that post non-photo clutter will soon learn that they will need to post a photo with their future clutter if they have any hope of their post being seen. Facebook will become a more visual interesting place.
Another thing this is going to do is it’s going to increase the number of likes everyones photos are going to get on Facebook. You’ll be able to consume and like photos far more efficiently with the photo app than the Facebook mobile app and these likes will be directly reflected on all versions (standalone app, Facebook mobile app, Facebook web). People will feel more love on Facebook for their photos and this will want to make them spend more time on Facebook and upload higher quality photos that are more likely to get more attention.
Google, of course, is also keenly aware of the importance of photos in their own network Google+. Today they launched an important Android app update (the same new interface that they launched a few weeks back for iOS). What does Google’s new G+ app emphasize? Photos of course. Photos dominate the new app — but Facebook’s app is smarter in a way than Google’s, because Facebook now gives you *two* ways to consume Facebook.
If you are a photo centric individual (and if you’re not you’d better quickly adapt and become one or get left behind) you’ve got a pure photo experience. If you are not a photo centric individual there still is the traditional app that shows you everything.
As far as the app itself, I haven’t played with it yet. Dirk showed it to me down at Facebook though and the most important thing is that it has one touch liking. It also is very smart in how it shows you albums. You see the hint of the edge of a photo and slide horizontally. You slide vertically (just like Instagram) down the screen to see new photos by your contacts.
Along with a superior way to browse photos on Facebook, the new app also has a camera that lets you apply a number of effects to your photos. The effects are more traditional than the artsy faux-film effects of Instagram, but they are a welcome opportunity for those who want to use the camera part of the new app. Of course you can still use whatever your favorite camera app is (Camera Awesome is still #1 in my book) and upload these finished photos on your phone directly to Facebook and have them consumed through this new app.
Today’s move shows how serious Facebook is about competing for quality photographers. Quality photographers will thrive on Facebook like never before. Facebook has seen Google’s success with photographers on Google+. They are going to compete for the serious social photographers and in the process push all Facebook users more towards communicating in our new language of photography. What an exciting time for photographers on the web. Between this new app and the pending Instagram purchase, Facebook is clearly now leading in mobile photography. This new app should put pressure on Google to also create a standalone photo application for Google+ and it should put even more pressure on Flickr to invest serious resources into redoing their mobile apps which are sorely lacking compared to Facebook Camera.
It should also be noted that although inevitably folks will compare this standalone photo app to Instagram, the app really doesn’t have anything to do with Instagram. The Instagram deal has not been completed yet and the Facebook Photos team had been working on this completely independently from Instagram. The new Facebook is iOS only for now, but I’m sure they’ll be out with an Android version too at some point in the future.